Open thread for episode 23.03: Tracie & guest Mandisa Lateefah Thomas


We have today the amazing Mandisa Thomas, who is a powerhouse behind Black Nonbelievers and who also serves on the Board of Directors for American Atheists.

General TAE Links

General useful resources

Comments

  1. Ann Hubbard says

    Could Ms. Thomas address how a white atheist can engage with a black believer when they state that “slavery was a good thing because that is how God brought Jesus to the black community?” I have heard that several times, but as a white person, i don’t feel i can really address slavery in conversation with a black person. Is there any good answer?

  2. Wiggle Puppy says

    Ugh, I’m not a fan of Tracie’s approach to Kalam. It’s way more simple to just ask the caller how to get from “the universe had a cause” to “a god exists.” You can’t get there without a whole bunch of unjustified assumptions. Telling the callers to ask physicists isn’t all that satisfying.

  3. Steve Taylor says

    Why does blood clot ? Because, if it didn’t, it would all run out, and the organism dies.

  4. Shiningone says

    I am responding to comments made by Tracy and replying to answers I have received from others in the live chat. Namely the subject of child birth.
    We all know that the way to make another person is to have intercourse. Just because pregnancy does not occur 100% of the time does not discount it from being the only process to have a baby ( apart from artificial insemination ). Yes we can have intercourse for fun, with protection and no intention of getting pregnant. But we ALL know that when we WANT to get pregnant, intercourse is the way to do it. It has consequences. The main one being, the formation of another human being.
    The unborn person has special rights because it had NO CHOICE in the position it is in. It did not get to choose to be in the womb of a woman. That position was forced on it by the CHOICE of the woman. Once the woman MADE THAT CHOICE, her rights to end it prematurely are forfeited. No body is taking away her rights. She has the right to get pregnant or not get pregnant. Once she makes that choice her rights are superseded by the rights of the unborn person. She has NO RIGHT to kill it.
    Women and men KNOW having unprotected vaginal intercourse CAN lead to pregnancy. It has been scientifically proven that at certain times women are fertile.
    Now, on to the subject of rape. As we know, human reproduction is a natural event, we also know that human recovery from damage to are bodies is also a natural event. I am in no way saying the act of rape is in any way natural or condoned. However, in the same way people have to spend time to recuperate from damage inflicted on them from violence, a woman should also have to spend time in carrying the child to full term. The recuperation time of effects of violence can be longer than the term of pregnancy. She is completely within her rights to pass responsibility of the BORN child on to someone else.
    This is based on logic and reason, NOT appeals to emotion. The same type of logic and reason used by the presenters of the atheist experience to denounce belief in god. For some reason, they fail to use it in this case.

  5. robertwilson says

    I have to agree with Tracie and how she handled the call. In fact, at first I thought she wouldn’t even give the caller a chance to say anything and I would’ve been fine with that.

    Why waste time going over the same stuff again? Particularly on an episode with a guest like Mandisa Thomas.

    She was extremely generous with him after he basically stated “I want to regurgitate the same stuff you’ve heard before and waste everyone’s time”.

  6. Nathan Roe says

    Cole, from Alberta Canada. Based off your voice no one is gonna ever have sex with you so the abortion question is not an issue for you.

  7. buddyward says

    It always amazes me when people think that philosophy alone can prove the existence of god. After all these years of atheists asking theist to prove the existence of god, theist somehow keeps reverting back to philosophical arguments.

    Jim from California seems to have been taken aback and asked Tracy why she is dismissing his philosophical arguments and I like the way she handled it by saying they can talk about it all day long and they can even agree but at the end of the day there is no way to prove that what they are saying is true.

  8. Mobius says

    It seemed, from what the caller (Jim from CA) said following the first assumption, that he wasn’t following the normal script…begins needs cause, universe began, therefore cause, which is God. He started off with a-temporal and headed off from there.

    He acknowledged that time began with the beginning of the universe, then tried to talk about “prior to time”. Sorry Jim, but “prior” assumes time, thus you were trying to say something about time before time existed. Kinda falls flat logically, doesn’t it?

    Re Cole in Alberta: I think Tracy was a bit off on her argument about sex being bonding outside of family. Within humans, I think sex is a means of forming a bond leading to a family, and keeps the bond so that both parents are engaged in raising a family.

    To the caller on Evolution, whose name I didn’t catch: “Highest” in terms of evolution is a very outdated notion. It is pretty much a 19th century idea that came from the “ladder of life”, with humans at the top. That idea was pretty much tied into the story of Genesis, with all life subservient to man. However, it was finally realized that all life has had the same amount of time to evolve. It has just evolved in a myriad of different directions.

    And, BTW, NO, humans were not the intended end product of evolution. Humans just happened. Rewind the tape 3 billion years and no telling what would evolve.

  9. twarren1111 says

    Poor Jim. I think a lot of these calls about Kalam demonstrate our countries poor preparation to understand the scientific process and the different scientific fields. We all should be able to incorporate new data into our concepts. To wit: time is an emergent property. It arises out of how energy (information) is related to mass (matter) as the Big Bang evolved. The reason the speed of light is constant and cannot be exceeded is to maintain causality: for all observers A causes B. The time that A and B occurred, the distance between A and B, even the sequence of A and B are all emergent and depend upon the reference frame of the observer in relation to other observers in relation to whatever A and B is. Planck length, Planck volume, Planck pressure are the smallest entities and are straight lines. All curves, bc of how mass/matter bend space time and create gravity are emergent. The whole basis of all this is the geometreogenesis of the universe and this is why everything builds upon these basic aspects from Planck scale to the universe/blackholes. Thus, trying to use ‘before’ time or ‘before ten to minus 43 seconds is so crazy. It doesn’t exist. Indeed, it appears that ‘full’ singularities cannot occur. The evidence is growing for a cycle universe that goes from bang to bang on a sinusoidal pattern. Black holes are where we go from 4D to 3D at the event Horizonte to 2D as we pass the event horizon and data is now emerging that as mass/matter is engulfed into the black hole complexity, ie, kolmogrov, ie, algorithmic entropy increases until a white hole is formed. Thus, perhaps this is why loop quantum gravity and universes that create black holes readily is what explains the ‘big circle’ of our universe. It seems that as more and more massive black holes merge as discovered by LIGO and VIRGO that perhaps these black holes are why the expansion of the universe is accelerating: the ‘sphere’ or riemanian non-Euclidean geometry will, as all the universe fails into black holes and ebevtually the ‘last black hole’ that this is when ‘inversion’ happens, charge parity inverts so that + becomes -, a white hole then occurs which is the next Big Bang and all the other symmetries invert as well: chirality switches, handedness switches, but time still has to go one way. Why? Bc potential energy goes to kinetic. Entropy still has to increase. It’s just that we go from Shannon entropy increasing in the 4D space time and then in the black hole, which acts as a ‘battery’ that once enough matter goes into black holes and enough black holes coalesce that we all the algorithmic entropy being built up inside the black holes suddenly flips. Inverts. CPT inverts. You tip the hour glass over. Now the potential energy is restored. It all begins again. Right becomes left. Dextro becomes sinister. Positive becomes negative. Matter becomes antimatter. Time starts over but bc of how entropy works between Shannon (kinetic) and algorithmic (potential) entropy/energy, time has to go one way. This is why once a system is complex enough to be self referential you can tell when a movie is running backwards or forwards of humans walking. But, you can’t tell which way the movie of the solar system is going. Why? Scale. Induction vs deduction. If the solar system movie is running backwards, you’ll figure it out if it goes for 5 billion years bc you’ll see the earth break apart and you’ll know if the film is going forwards if in 5 billion years the sun gets huge. See? That’s the problem of induction. That’s why scale matters. That’s why fractals fall apart after a certain scale. This is why complexity arises from the simple 4 dimensions bc if you are too narrowly looking at the earth you can get fooled that it looks intelligently designed. And that’s the way it is. No god needed. Self perpetual. Gravity emerges. Time emerges. Entropy changes form by becoming self referential and that’s why we get fooled by black holes and time and how things happen. One reality is ‘real’. But it’s also like we are looking into a mirror and behind us is a mirror. All can be possible. That’s why working together we can create ‘something’ from ‘nothing’. That’s why perfect codes are related to sphere packing. Bc geometrogenesis comes from the Planck level and it’s all symmetry breaking from there. But there is one symmetry that can go only one way: the symmetry of time and it’s partner which is the speed of light. If we didn’t have that we’d be a mess. The other symmetries: charge, parity, the forces (electroweak, strong, gravity) are in symmetry, string theory, black/white holes, spins of electrons, neutrinos, the math of supersymmetry, the bilateral aspect of our body, how DNA is a binary system but quaternary just like dichotomy vs Bayes theorem…and that’s what consciousness is: a spectrum of empathy so we can trust each other to judge reality. Bacteria sense glucose and light and that’s their consciousness. Manta rays, the most primitive flush, recognize themselves in the mirror. And thus us why the paleolimbic brain aka mammalian brain won out. This us why we went to huge, glucose fed brains and warm blooded. A psychopath is a human knockout. Trump is a thinking reptile. And that’s why trust/love is so important. That’s why robin Dunbar predicted what he did and why all Dara support it. It’s why zipf’s law. It’s why Geoffrey west’s findings on scale. It’s why multicellular organisms developed. If you get 5 people together and they love they can be the Beatles. You put one dishonest liar like Oreoman or Sal Cordova or try to use faith to determine how geometry works, what you get is imperfect codes. The spheres don’t work. And the result is wasted time. That’s why Obama led by reality, empathy and safety. Trump leads by delusion, callousness and fear. One maximized E=mc2. The other is wasting it. Remember, 99% of your weight on a scale is NOT your baryons, ITS YOUR GLUONS. PEOPLE CONTAIN 100 HIROSHIMAS. A WHALE ONE THOUSAND. IF YOU IGNORE HOW THINGS RATIO, RELATE, RATIONALITY THEN WHAT YOU DO IS WASTE E=MC2 VIA BORDER WALLS, VIOLATING WOMENS RIGHTS, USING THE BIBLE TO DETERMINE MORALITY, YOU DESTROY CITIES WITH HURRICANES, YOU HAVE PEOPLE WEARING MAGA HATS TELLING VIETNAM VETERANS THAT ARE NATIVE AMERICANS TO GO BACK TO THEIR COUNTRY IN MEXICO!

  10. twarren1111 says

    Mobius
    While humans just happened, our brains were the goal
    Look at dinosaurs, reptiles, mammals, birds
    Look at ADD, NPD
    Look at warm blooded
    Look at why consciousness
    Look at John Wheeler “it from bit” idea he wrote about just before his death

  11. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    Here I was all ready to talk about how pleased I was to see Tracie nipping the Kalam in the bud and then I read the Shiningone’s post.

    Wow… Just wow.

  12. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @twarren1111 #11:

    our brains were the goal

    Comic: Stonemaker Argument – The Happy Little Tetrad
     
     

    Look at John Wheeler’s “it from bit” idea

    Article: Wikipedia – John Archibald Wheeler, Participatory Anthropic Principle

    every it – every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself – derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely – even if in some contexts indirectly – from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits

     
    Wheeler had a lot of ideas.
     
    Article: Wikipedia – One-electron Universe

    The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time.

  13. Cousin Ricky says

    Kalam fails on both of its premises:

    1. The only confirmed examples we have of things beginning to exist are virtual particles, and so far as science has determined, they do not have a cause. The first premise is therefore probably false.

    2. We do not even know if the universe began to exist! Much to the chagrin of old-Earth creationists and similar theists, the big bang theory does not address this matter. The second premise is thus unconfirmed.

    We don’t even need to get into whether this postulated cause should be characterized as a god, let alone specifically the triune version of the god of Abraham.

  14. Sean Rachar says

    I’ll be very concise. I’m pro-choice. I reject Tracy’s idea that an unborn human should be treated merely as a part of a woman’s body. If we accept this notion, it leads to abhorrent consequences; a reductio ad absurdum argument can be formulated as follows:

    P1: An unborn human is not distinct, in the ethical or legal sense, from the person whose body it occupies.

    P2: Any arbitrary body modification surgery is ethically and legally permissible: it’s strictly a decision between the surgeon and the subject of the surgery.

    C (P1+P2): Any surgical modification of the unborn human is ethically and legally permissible: it’s strictly a decision between the surgeon and the person whose body it occupies.

    By such logic, it should be permissible for me to cause brain damage similar to a lobotomy to the unborn human, and then take it into my care upon its birth, meeting all outwardly visible standards of care, and disclosing fully to the public that I had ‘designed’ my child in this way. No one, operating by Tracie’s view, would have grounds to hold me accountable for this decision, or for the resulting zombie-like life of the victim of my crime, because in Tracie’s view, I have only made an alteration to my own body, and such is my right. There would be no basis, under Tracie’s view, to say that my behavior would indicate, as it obviously would, that I am not properly concerned for the well-being of my child.

    Since the morally abhorrent conclusion follows from the premises, and since P1 is a reasonable ethical standard, P2 should be rejected.

  15. buddyward says

    @Sean Rachar

    I too am pro-choice. I just have a question with regards to one of the premise.

    Is it ethically and legally permissible to instruct a surgeon to lobotomize yourself simply because you want to?

    I think that the dilemma in your example is not in the procedure itself but in the intention of causing harm after the child is born. Aborting a fetus does not have this intent.

  16. paxoll says

    Shiningone, you are just fucken wrong.

    The unborn person has special rights because it had NO CHOICE in the position it is in

    Everyone is in positions they had “NO CHOICE” in the matter, and that does not give them special rights. Does a mentally handicapped person who doesn’t understand rights or morals get to rape and steal at will because they didn’t choose to be that way? Does someone with schizophrenia get to assault people because they are hallucinating? No, a unborn child does not have “special rights”, its not some fucken roller coaster where a unborn child has the most rights, as soon as they are born they drop down to less rights than anyone and then zoom back up to adult level of rights.

    That position was forced on it by the CHOICE of the woman

    Not the choice of the man? Also ignoring the fact that the woman might not have chosen to have sex at all (rape) and ignoring that choosing to have sex is not choosing to be pregnant since it is NOT the intended purpose of the “CHOICE”. Like Tracy said, choosing to drive your car is not choosing to be in a car accident, even if it is impossible to be IN a car accident without “choosing” to get into a car.

    her rights to end it prematurely are forfeited.

    you don’t forfeit your bodily autonomy. You can sign a fucken contract to do something, and cannot be forced to bodily do it. You can commit a crime, lose your freedom, lose lots of rights, but to violate your bodily autonomy a judge has to specifically rule for that ONE instance. The only time you lose your bodily autonomy is when you are in the process of committing a crime. Which is exactly what happens to the unborn child as soon as the woman exercises her right to bodily autonomy to NOT be pregnant anymore.

    However, in the same way people have to spend time to recuperate from damage inflicted on them from violence, a woman should also have to spend time in carrying the child to full term.

    So not only does a woman have to suffer the biggest possible violation of her bodily autonomy short of death, but she has to suffer continued violation of her bodily autonomy WITH a constant reminder of the original crime against her, all the while RISKING HER HEALTH AND LIFE, because carrying a child to term is a MUCH bigger risk to the womans health and life than getting an abortion. NONE of this is logical, it is you using absolute bullshit to control women. Do everyone a favor and get sterilized so we don’t have to worry about your genes ever getting passed on.

  17. Heretical Ryan says

    Jim from California – you are not the first theist caller to whip out the Kalam argument as if it was kryptonite for atheists.

    Sadly you won’t be the last.

  18. Honey Tone says

    @ Shiningone #4

    How generous of you impose the “rights” of the fetus on the body of the woman and to subsume her rights to its. You know, just apart from the fact that not all sexual activity is consented, there is a definite and distinct danger to the mother in carrying a pregnancy to term and in birthing the baby. Yes, even in the western world.

    I don’t feel inclined to grant any special rights to the fetus which the mother herself is not willing to give, and certainly not before viability.

  19. paxoll says

    Sean Rachar, I do not believe Tracy ever put forth that argument at all. In fact in the episode she specifically states that she considers an unborn child a separate human from conception. This is quite generous in my view as I consider independent thought to be the hallmark of an individual person making the unborn child a separate human sometime around 22 weeks or later. We consider a brain dead person “dead”, so a child is not really alive until they are thinking on their own.

  20. Sean Rachar says

    @buddyward

    Yes, it is perfectly ethical to instruct a surgeon to lobotomize you, just as euthanasia is perfectly ethical. Any person in a mental state free from temporary confusion should have their wishes respected when it comes to handling their life as they see fit, so long as there is not infringement on the rights of anyone else in so doing.

    Although I was ambiguous about it, I didn’t specify that any harm would be caused after the child is born. If we stipulate that no further harm is caused when the child is born, are you satisfied that it is permissible for someone to do this with no justification necessary? For instance, if I have a sexual fetish that involves turning someone into a living zombie and that’s why I decide to have this surgery, but then I don’t harm the child after they’re born, is that something that we as a society should consider morally neutral? I think what you’re really bothered by are the long-term effects of the harm caused, but that doesn’t mean that the harm itself was inflicted after birth.

    Tracie herself is not dealing with intent at all, so I don’t see how you can make this distinction without agreeing to my argument. You don’t care what my intent is when I get a nose piercing – it’s my body and it’s none of your business why I want my nose pierced. Even if I’m piercing it so that I can look scary and intimidate people whom I plan to assault and harass, you can’t use your guesswork that that’s why I’m doing it to restrict my right to pierce my nose. The intent is not relevant in such cases. If, however, we’re talking about a different “part of my body,” namely the unborn person inside me, we must adopt a set of standards that say intent becomes relevant.

  21. RationalismRules says

    @Shiningone

    However, in the same way people have to spend time to recuperate from damage inflicted on them from violence, a woman should also have to spend time in carrying the child to full term.

    This is without doubt the worst argument I have ever heard presented on this subject.

    When someone is shot, we don’t expect them to carry the bullet in their body until their body naturally expels it.
    If someone has both their legs crushed by having a car driven into them, we don’t tell them they simply have to put up with it until their legs drop off from gangrene.

    Logic and reason, you say?
     
    As to the rest of your argument, you skip blithely over the most fundamental point – at what point does a clump of cells become a ‘person’? From the rest of your comment, I’m pretty sure that you would say they are a ‘person’ from the moment of conception. But on what basis?

    Please explain, through logic and reason, and without appeal to emotion, how a newly fertilized egg constitutes a ‘person’.

  22. Honey Tone says

    Oh, and before I forget, let’s try to remember that a sex drive is pretty basic in humans. Lesser in some, but greater in others. Where consented sexual activity occurs, it’s not exactly just a choice made in a complete vacuum, like choosing the color of curtains.

    And in many women, the “choice” to engage in sex isn’t very much free, though it falls short of rape.

    People’s lives are messy and complicated. Stop trying to apply black and white rules, and let people be when it doesn’t affect you.

  23. Sean Rachar says

    @paxoll

    I wasn’t quite sure, myself. She talks about bodily autonomy and I took it in the way I argued against above, but you’re right that some of the comments she makes seem to show that she’s taking up a different position. However, I don’t think the alternative is any better, in fact I think the other plausible interpretation of her view is even less persuasive.

    If we take seriously the flawed analogy to rape, and the comparison of the unborn child to the ethical standing of a rapist, there are a number of obvious looming issues which I can enumerate but have no idea how to even approach resolving them.

    Here are the main problems that come to mind:

    1. An unborn human does not choose to occupy another person’s body, a rapist does.
    2. An unborn human may not be not fully aware that it occupies another person’s body, a rapist is.
    3. An unborn human has no available course of action to cease occupying another person’s body, a rapist does.

    Tracie says to consider an example in which a woman and man are having sex, but then the woman decides that she doesn’t want him inside her anymore, and so he must remove himself or else it would be acceptable for her to harm him. So let’s take this example, and juxtapose the conditions of the unborn onto the man. By no doing of his own, a man’s penis is inside a woman, when the woman decides that she wants him out. However, the man is heavily sedated and barely conscious, he has no idea what she wants, who she is, or how he got there, he doesn’t understand that he’s inside her, and he’s too sedated to move at all if he wants to. Is she justified in harming him?

    The reason I ran the way I did with Tracie’s statements is because, to me, it seemed the more charitable interpretation of what she was saying. But I could be missing something. Help me out.

  24. buddyward says

    @Sean Rachar

    Yes, it is perfectly ethical to instruct a surgeon to lobotomize you, just as euthanasia is perfectly ethical. Any person in a mental state free from temporary confusion should have their wishes respected when it comes to handling their life as they see fit, so long as there is not infringement on the rights of anyone else in so doing.

    Please cite where it is ethical and legal to have a surgeon perform lobotomy on you just because you say so. So far as what I have read you cannot go up to a surgeon and request a lobotomy simply because you want to. Euthenasia is a legal term which pertains to ending another person’s life to relieve pain and suffering. It may be legal to do so assuming that you have professionals in agreement that there are no more treatments available. These are things doctors are not allowed to do simply because you want to do it on a whim. There are strict rules around these procedures.

    Although I was ambiguous about it, I didn’t specify that any harm would be caused after the child is born. If we stipulate that no further harm is caused when the child is born, are you satisfied that it is permissible for someone to do this with no justification necessary? For instance, if I have a sexual fetish that involves turning someone into a living zombie and that’s why I decide to have this surgery, but then I don’t harm the child after they’re born, is that something that we as a society should consider morally neutral?

    I do not think that there is anyway to stipulate that there will be no harm done after birth. The fact that the brain continues to develop after child birth and the fact that we know that the brain will not develop normally after the lobotomy is still harm after birth. As I have said before, the dilemma is not in the procedure itself but in the intent. You are putting into motion the effects of harm.

    I think what you’re really bothered by are the long-term effects of the harm caused, but that doesn’t mean that the harm itself was inflicted after birth.

    I am pondering this statement carefully and the issue that I have here is that it is not consistent with the act of aborting a fetus. Aborting a fetus does not contain any intention or decision on how a child should live its life after birth. Your example, demonstrate that there is intention on how another human being should live.

    Tracie herself is not dealing with intent at all, so I don’t see how you can make this distinction without agreeing to my argument. You don’t care what my intent is when I get a nose piercing – it’s my body and it’s none of your business why I want my nose pierced. Even if I’m piercing it so that I can look scary and intimidate people whom I plan to assault and harass, you can’t use your guesswork that that’s why I’m doing it to restrict my right to pierce my nose. The intent is not relevant in such cases. If, however, we’re talking about a different “part of my body,” namely the unborn person inside me, we must adopt a set of standards that say intent becomes relevant.

    The reason Tracie did not deal with intent is because she was not faced with the example that you proposed. It did not come into question during the show.

    I would care about your piercing if it will harm another human being. If you choose to use radioactive materials that would cause harm to others or you use a granade pin that is attached to an actual live granade then yes, I would care. It would not be a defense to state that you did not harm those people you simply harmed yourself. You are the one that put things in motion. When you harm someone, you are not judge based on your piercings or tattoos. You are judge on your actions.

    Before we get lost in the weeds here I would like to reiterate that I support a woman’s right to choose. I just do not think that your example is in anyway equivalent to abortion.

  25. paxoll says

    @Sean Rachar
    1) If the rapist was mentally incompetent to know it was wrong, does the woman have to sit there and accept it?
    2) Same point.
    3) The unborn child has the exact same course of action the rapist has (if a unborn child could actually do anything) and that is to stop having unwanted contact with the woman. The difference is the rapist can stop without being killed, while the child can only do that after 24 weeks or so. Which is a whole section of what Tracy talked about.

    The other analogy that is quite accurate is imagine you are driving and slide on some ice and hit another car. You and the other person are taken to the hospital and the other persons kidneys don’t work but you are a blood match. Can they force you to remain connected to this other person to keep them alive? Can we force people to donate blood to save someone elses life? The only reason people consider this “flawed analogy” which it isn’t, is that somehow the act of sex in their mind makes them “responsible” and removes their rights to bodily autonomy, even though it is not true in ANY other circumstance. No analogy is perfect, because its an analogy. What is perfect about it is if the point (in this case bodily autonomy) is accurately represented. As for responsibility, we know going in the sun causes skin cancer, do we force people to live with skin cancer because they “knew” going outside would cause it? Do we force smokers to live with lung cancer because they chose to smoke? Do we force parents to be parents because they birthed a child? No. They are responsible to make the choice on what to do with their circumstance. They have their mole removed, they have chemotherapy, or they put their child up for adoption. With women, they are responsible to make the decision on if they are going to remain pregnant.

  26. michaelrch says

    For Jim from CA, there is a great playlist on the scientific work on what was going on “before the Big Bang” here. They do interviews with the leading scientists in the field including Roger Penrose and otters. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m

    I happen to think that the Kalam makes no sense because it “special pleads” that only god can be responsible for the universe and something natural can’t exist eternally, which is arbitrary. But as Tracie says, the more interesting discussion is about science, not a blind fumbling around in philosophy.

  27. Mobius says

    @21 paxoll

    I may be wrong, but I don’t think Tracy said a fetus was human. She did say it was alive, that life started at conception. I don’t recall her saying when she considered it to be human. Perhaps when it is viable?

  28. Monocle Smile says

    @Sean
    A zygote or even a fetus isn’t a person. Not all entities with human DNA are persons. A brain dead corpse on a ventilator is still a corpse and not a person.

  29. Sean Rachar says

    @paxoll

    1&2) Not knowing that what one does is wrong is entirely separate from not doing something. The unborn doesn’t do anything, while the mentally incompetent rapist does something wrong without knowing it.
    3) But an unborn child can’t do anything! A rapist can do something to change the situation, an unborn child cannot, not immediately, and not after 24 weeks either. The unborn child is, on the contrary, helpless to change the situation. That’s my entire point, and you just ignored it by saying “if an unborn child could actually do anything.” But it can’t, so that’s that.

    No, they can’t force you to give blood to keep the person alive, and I’m totally consistent in this position because as I stated off the get-go, I am pro-choice — I defend the position that they equally cannot force the woman to carry a child to term. But while you’re making the case that the woman is in a difficult spot, and I see that, you allot exactly zero words to recognize that the other party, the unborn child, is not in any way a bad actor comparable to a rapist. Rather, the unborn child is in a vulnerable and precarious situation itself. All of this might be moot if your point of view is to identify humanity in the unborn child at some number of weeks after conception, but that is not Tracie’s view. She gave the child its humanity from conception, so she relies on the fact that her right to bodily autonomy is being infringed upon and insists that it’s comparable to rape. But for a crime or any unethical action to be committed, there must be a mens rea and an actus reus. With no mens rea, nor any actus reus, there cannot be any serious contention of a violation of rights, so the unborn child is undeniably innocent of wrongdoing.

  30. Sean Rachar says

    @Monocle Smile

    Are you one of the hosts?

    I agree, but when the caller asked Tracie when one becomes a human, her response indicated that it was at conception. She may indeed have had in mind a careful distinction between the words ‘human’ and ‘person,’ but in context it came across that she was communicating a forfeiture of exactly the defense you’re offering here. She seemed to want to defend her view on other grounds, which is what I’m responding to.

  31. Mobius says

    @11 twarren111

    While humans just happened, our brains were the goal

    Sorry, but that is just not supported by the evidence. It was a common view in the 19th century, but has been tossed onto the trash heap of history as our knowledge of evolution has grown. From Wikipedia (yeah, I know)…

    “Many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive (orthogenesis) and had a direction that led towards so-called “higher organisms,” despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5] This idea of “progression” and “higher organisms” in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6] Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant.”

    Look at dinosaurs, reptiles, mammals, birds

    So what? What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

    Look at ADD, NPD

    Not sure what you mean by ADD, NPD. I am assuming you are talking about Attention Deficit Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If so…again, so what?

    Look at warm blooded

    Yes, warm blooded has certain advantages. But then, so does cold blooded. That is why we see both in existence, depending on the niche the species is in, and what its evolutionary heritage has been.

    Look at why consciousness

    And once again, so what? You keep pointing out things that show an increase in complexity, conveniently ignoring cases where complexity has decreased. What is your point? Evolution is a dynamic systems, and dynamic systems tend to lead to greater complexity.

    Look at John Wheeler “it from bit” idea he wrote about just before his death

    And again, what does this have to do with the price of tea? “It from bit” is a conjecture. It is not even a hypothesis as such. It merely asks some interesting questions for which we have no answers (yet), either “yes” or “no”.

    You didn’t say, but judging by these points I would guess you are a proponent of Intelligent Design. Your points certainly fit with things the ID mavens like to point out. Here’s a clue…so far ID is nothing more than an idea, and a failed idea at that.

  32. Mobius says

    @32 Sean Rachar

    I believe the question from the caller was “when does life start”, and Tracy responded that life started with conception.

  33. Sean Rachar says

    @Mobius

    I just checked that. At 1:05:25 the following exchange takes place:

    Caller: “…when does human life begin?”

    Tracie: “I would say life begins the moment you have your own DNA… like literally at conception”

    Caller: “So conception, right?”

    Tracie: “Yeah, yeah.”

    Caller: “So that’s when HUMAN life begins.” (the emphasis on ‘human’ is heavy in the caller’s tone)

    Tracie: “Yeah. I mean it’s a human being, it has it’s own DNA, uh, yeah.”

    Caller: “Okay, we can agree about that.”

    Note: At around 51:40 Tracie talks about the state’s view that ‘personhood’ is at issue, but goes on to say that she has a different argument that revolves around bodily autonomy that she thinks is a better way to defend abortion.

  34. autishd says

    Is the Big Bang the equivalent of “beginning to exist” within the meaning of the Kalam cosmological argument? My understanding is that we just don’t know enough about the early Universe and its origins to answer the question. It is possible that the Universe is cyclical and possibly in that sense, there was no beginning in the sense implied by the Kalam argument. So, it isn’t actually clear that the argument even applies to the Universe as we know it.

    If we assume that the Kalam cosmological argument is accurate, all it would suggest is that the Universe has a cause. How do we get to God from that?

    Even if we had a cause and labeled it God, God as described in nearly every religion is very unlikely to be the agent of creation of the Universe. Gods in most religions are surprisingly human or at least of a form that could manifest to humans. We cannot of course know what the nature of the cause would be, but the descriptions of Gods in most religions are too humanoid to be credibly a cause of the creation of the Universe.

  35. autishd says

    The caller discussing evolution does not quite realize the numbers involved. There are trillions of organisms on earth. These organisms reproduce quite frequently, likely producing billions of new organisms a day. The number of opportunities to “evolve” over the last 500 million years or more of evolution are greater than a trillion trillion, and that is likely an underestimate. To put that into perspective, that is orders of magnitude larger than the number of seconds since the creation of the Universe. Add to that the fact that DNA cannot really get modified in any arbitrary way, which means that the randomness underlying life has some patterns to it. Add to that the fact that organisms grow, so things like blood are really dependent on how DNA is coded, so organisms don’t need to build every cell individually, they only need to modify the patterns in DNA. Taking all this together, it doesn’t seem surprising that complex organisms emerged.

    I sometimes wonder whether the human inability to comprehend large numbers contributes to some of the confusion with concepts related to the creation of the Universe or about evolution.

  36. says

    this seems like an excellent opportunity to lazily repost one of my comments from an earlier episode where evolution came up:

    one fundamental hurdle holding back fundies is a misconception about how new traits develop. creationists and other doubters think that under evolution animals [*] somehow know or figure out which traits to adapt. trees are tall, horses need their necks to grow and — badaboom — giraffes! laughable of course, and doubters are right to be incredulous of this straw man.

    but evolution is an process of elimination. the evironment takes a turn, and any individuals in a population lucky enough to already possess the crucial trait(s) survive and multiply while the rest wither or die out completely. a bug-killer may kill 99% of its victims, but the surviving 1% will spawn a hardy new generation (provided of course that the trait is inheritable) because of some formerly inconsequential difference from their less fortunate kin.

    two men are enjoying a pleasant stroll through a forest. suddenly they see a bear in the distance, running towards them. the first turns to run away, but the other takes a pair of running shoes from his bag, and puts them on.

    “wtf are you doing?” says the first man. “you think those will make you faster than a bear?”

    “i don’t have to be faster than the bear,” says the other. “i just have to be faster than you.”

    [*] or nature itself.

    so evolution is a process that is neither goal-oriented nor random (while factors that impact it, like environmental changes and mutation, can be random).

  37. Shiningone says

    @ RationalismRules

    “when someone is shot, we don’t expect them to carry the bullet in their body until their body naturally expels it.”
    Of course we don’t, because a bullet is not going to turn into a human being. Logic! see, this is what it is, try using it.

    “at what point does a clump of cells become a ‘person’?”
    This is irrelevant. Because we KNOW, from previous examples that after conception a human being is born 9 months later. It does NOT matter when we decide to call it a “person”. The label of it, has nothing to do with what it is and what it will be.
    We KNOW a newly fertilised egg becomes a “person” because we have had millions of examples that SHOW that is the case.
    What ELSE is it going to be? A tractor, a giraffe?

  38. Shiningone says

    @ paxoll

    “Everyone is in positions they had “NO CHOICE” in the matter…bla bla bla..”
    We DO give special rights to handicap people in case you have not noticed. Not to the absurd level you are suggesting, but generally in day to day living.

    “Not the choice of the man?” No, a man can not choose to get a woman pregnant. He has to have her permission to do it.

    “Also ignoring the fact that the woman might not have chosen to have sex at all (rape)” I do not need to ignore it. I addressed it.

    “and ignoring that choosing to have sex is not choosing to be pregnant since it is NOT the intended purpose of the “CHOICE” ”
    I also addressed this. We can choose to have sex for fun and not get pregnant, that is why we have contraception. Then obviously the “choice” is NOT to get pregnant. This does NOT negate the fact that sex IS the mechanism where by we procreate.

    “Like Tracy said, choosing to drive your car is not choosing to be in a car accident, even if it is impossible to be IN a car accident without “choosing” to get into a car.” Tracy, like the other presenters, is again showing their bias in this area. She completely ignores logic. Choosing to have PROTECTED sex is how we choose not to get pregnant. We KNOW that this method is not always safe. We also know, that if the protection does not work, the result is pregnancy. We know that driving a car for most of the time is safe. We also know that we can sometimes have an accident. We do not CHOOSE to be in a car accident, just as we do not choose to get pregnant while being protected. We DO KNOW that both can happen. If you want to be 100% sure of not having a car accident, then do not USE the car.

    “you don’t forfeit your bodily autonomy” I agree. You also do not forfeit anyone else’s. Which is what you would be doing if you kill the human being that WILL be born. When you jump off a cliff without a parachute, you do not get to forfeit the rules of gravity on the way down. If you CHOOSE to jump you have to live with the consequences. If you do NOT want to hit the ground, then do NOT jump. We KNOW gravity being a natural force has results. We KNOW having sex can lead to natural forces taking over.

    “So not only does a woman have to suffer the biggest possible violation of her bodily autonomy short of death, but she has to suffer continued violation of her bodily autonomy WITH a constant reminder of the original crime against her, all the while RISKING HER HEALTH AND LIFE, because carrying a child to term is a MUCH bigger risk to the womans health and life than getting an abortion.”
    To begin with, this is an appeal to emotion. Rape is NOT the biggest possible violation of her body. On a purely physical level it does not even come close. In it’s most basic form it is just sex without consent. ( I am not ignoring the fact that violence can also be involved ) Hacking off someone’s limbs is an extreme form of bodily violation.
    On a psychological level it can have more dramatic effects. It does depend on the individual.
    A woman’s body is designed to reproduce. ( not intelligent design, I am not a theist ) It is a natural mechanism. The health of women going through it is by far and wide not effected adversely.
    If someone were to hack your arm off, you would have to live with that for the rest of your life! Not just 9 months.

    “NONE of this is logical, it is you using absolute bullshit to control women. Do everyone a favor and get sterilized so we don’t have to worry about your genes ever getting passed on.”

    So too top off your appeal to emotion, you end with an ad hominem attack. I, unlike you, respect logic, and women! I am not a Theist trying to control women. I believe women have rights. They have the right to get pregnant or not get pregnant. They also understand that having protected sex is not 100% safe. They also understand the consequences if that protection fails. The moment conception begins, they are also responsible for the life of another human being. The yet to be born human being did NOT CHOOSE to be in her womb. Just as most criminals do not CHOOSE to be in jail. She does not have a right to KILL that human being before it is born. Just as prison officers do not have the right to KILL inmates before they are released. Both are in a situation beyond their control.

  39. Pony says

    A question about AXP: Whatever happened to Russel Glasser? If anyone can tell me, I’d be obliged.

    Thanks.

  40. Shiningone says

    @ Matt Dillahunty

    I would like to take this opportunity to recognise what a tremendous achievement you have made. To go from someone that was so entrenched in the brainwashing that religion affords, to someone who is a world wide renown debater is truly a triumph of individual human spirit. I congratulate you sir.
    I also would like to warn you lol. I do notice form time to time your foibles. I have been a many year observer of your show and only now have decided to debate in your forum. I, as well as I’m sure you are, look forward to any debate that may improve our understanding of life and make us better at being, human beings.

  41. DanDare2050 says

    Sean Reacher says:

    P1: An unborn human is not distinct, in the ethical or legal sense, from the person whose body it occupies.

    P2: Any arbitrary body modification surgery is ethically and legally permissible: it’s strictly a decision between the surgeon and the subject of the surgery.

    C (P1+P2): Any surgical modification of the unborn human is ethically and legally permissible: it’s strictly a decision between the surgeon and the person whose body it occupies.

    P1 is an incorrect premise. An unborn human is distinct in as much that it may potentially be born and become a separate individual.
    If you terminate the unborn human then there is no separate individual and the conclusion does not arise.
    Therefore the subject of P2 in your set up is not just the woman but the future separate individual where they are taken to term.
    So the conclusion does not follow.

  42. DanDare2050 says

    Jack Rachar say

    If we take seriously the flawed analogy to rape, and the comparison of the unborn child to the ethical standing of a rapist, there are a number of obvious looming issues which I can enumerate but have no idea how to even approach resolving them.

    Here are the main problems that come to mind:

    1. An unborn human does not choose to occupy another person’s body, a rapist does.
    2. An unborn human may not be not fully aware that it occupies another person’s body, a rapist is.
    3. An unborn human has no available course of action to cease occupying another person’s body, a rapist does.

    Tracie says to consider an example in which a woman and man are having sex, but then the woman decides that she doesn’t want him inside her anymore, and so he must remove himself or else it would be acceptable for her to harm him. So let’s take this example, and juxtapose the conditions of the unborn onto the man. By no doing of his own, a man’s penis is inside a woman, when the woman decides that she wants him out. However, the man is heavily sedated and barely conscious, he has no idea what she wants, who she is, or how he got there, he doesn’t understand that he’s inside her, and he’s too sedated to move at all if he wants to. Is she justified in harming him?

    The man can be removed without harm. He is an independent functioning person. Removing a non-viable unborn human kills it of necessity. It is not an independent functioning person. The analogy does not work.

  43. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Shiningone #37:

    This is irrelevant. Because we KNOW, from previous examples that after conception a human being is born 9 months later. It does NOT matter when we decide to call it a “person”. The label of it, has nothing to do with what it is and what it will be.
     
    We KNOW a newly fertilised egg becomes a “person” because we have had millions of examples that SHOW that is the case.
     
    What ELSE is it going to be?

    Waste, from construction of a person that never completed. Interrupted by an intentional medical procedure or by chance.
     
    Article: Wikipedia – Miscarriage

    Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy. Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%, while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%.

     
    You’re denying all other potential outcomes, to insist there’s an inescapable linear progression, to argue all other outcomes should be forbidden… as if you could *make* the premise true.

  44. Shiningone says

    I’m new here, so can someone tell me if the presenters of the show ever join in on the blog comments?

  45. says

    Shiningone, if you don’t consider when a person actually starts existing to be the relevant point to value and protect their interests, but instead think that you should work to advance the possible future interests of people who could come into existence later, ones who would presumably appreciate existing and be glad that you ensured they came to exist, then presumably you feel some obligations to create as many possible people who will retroactively want the states of the universe that lead to their existence to have come into place, which in this scenario, you have very thoughtfully already done for them.
     
    So, do you think everyone should be having as many children as can possibly be supported? Should all non-human animals that we might be able to uplift some day be uplifted? Similarly, do you think we should, if we are able to do so, be creating as many artificial intelligences that are people as well, particularly if we can support more of them than human people, since that would mean we’re looking after the possible future interests of even more people? Or do you think that the interests of potential future people are only worth ensuring if it’s after the universe has reached a state of some minimum level of closeness to a possible future from where there is a shorter possible path available that leads to a person coming into existence if someone takes said path?
     
    Whether or not people share it with you, I suppose that a universal valuing of all potential people and working to bring them all into existence is a consistent position. But is that the position you hold?

  46. Shiningone says

    @ CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain

    “Waste, from construction of a person that never completed. Interrupted by an intentional medical procedure or by chance.”
    I have know idea what you are trying to say, in this incoherent statement/question ?

    “Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy.”
    It is the most common complication, OF complications. It is NOT the most common outcome of pregnancies.

    “Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20%”
    To begin with, I do not trust Wikipedia as the source of all truth. ( neither should you ) Also, this miscarriage rate they state is very ambiguous. They do not mention how they came up with this percentage. They do not mention the demographics of the statistical analysis. Miscarriage is at a greater rate in some areas of the planet than others. As the saying goes, statistics prove statistics mean nothing. Statistics can be manipulated to show ANYTHING you want.
    I am not saying these are incorrect. However, I think they are irrelevant to the point. I am NOT saying there is “an inescapable linear progression”. I am saying there IS a case of linear progression from conception that vastly out numbers the occurrences of unforeseeable natural termination.
    The point, still is, that woman CAN choose to get pregnant or NOT get pregnant. ( putting aside extreme circumstances ).

  47. Heretical Ryan says

    Shiningone –

    Jon Iacoletti and Tracie have been seen on the blog from time to time. (tracie goes by the name “heicart” ).

    Of course this is coming from someone who has (for the most part ) only lurked on this blog for a few months

  48. Shiningone says

    @ Jared

    Holy crap! As Sheldon Cooper once said, ( and I’m paraphrasing now ) “Leonard, your lucky, there is only a handful of people in the world that could follow that line of thinking, and I’m one of them.”

    “if you don’t consider when a person actually starts existing to be the relevant point to value and protect their interests, but instead think that you should work to advance the possible future interests of people who could come into existence later,”

    I consider the moment of conception to be when a human being starts to exist. All be it, in a rudimentary form. We do not need to “work” to advance their future existence, nature does that for us.

    “ones who would presumably appreciate existing and be glad that you ensured they came to exist”

    Again, we do not ensure they are born, nature handles that. ( generally ) Some people do NOT appreciate being alive and some people do. You get very ambiguous at this point, but I am presuming you mean, if people are happy to be born shouldn’t we make as many as possible? To begin with, this has nothing to do with the processes of reproduction. This is about opinions of how many people should exist. An entirely different subject.

    “So, do you think everyone should be having as many children as can possibly be supported?

    Again, my previous comments on the subject were directed at the choices woman have and do not have. However, I do not mind digressing on occasion.
    No. Everyone should NOT be having as many as possible. Each individual child needs to be supported. That does entail more than you think. I think a child should have at least one adult to dedicate time and education them. The more children a couple has the less time can be utilised on individual attention. If a couple has only two children then they can dedicate more of their time to one on one interaction.

  49. Gal Lumbroso says

    I wanted to address the point of when does a human life start.
    I was very surprised both Tracie and Mandisa agreed on “life starts at conception”. The reasoning Tracie gave was that it’s a distinct human being with it’s own DNA, but this is bad reasoning in my opinion, for the following reasons:
    First, each cell in the human body has “it’s own DNA”. I’m guessing Tracie meant “it’s own *unique* DNA”, but even that’s not a coherent distinction. There’s a reductio ad absurdum here where identical twins aren’t separate human beings because they don’t have unique DNA. Also, the human body contains so many cells that you can find hundreds if not thousands of unique sets of DNA just in one person (due to mutations that occur during cell division).
    Second, defining a unique human in such a way completely ignores what we actually care about in other humans – their consciousness. Identical twins are separate human beings because they each have their own inner experience that’s distinct from the other, just like any other human. We also tend to stop considering someone as a live person once they are brain dead, even though most of the tissues in that body are still alive (and have their own unique set of DNA).
    So, I would argue human life – at least in any sense we actually care about – starts with consciousness. Now, it’s difficult to put a hard line on when that actually begins, but it’s definitely not there before the brain develops. Therefore, a zygote (what you get right after conception) is certainly not the start of human life.

  50. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @ Shiningone – 45
    Yer welcome, I guess. Yer argument is (and apparently continues to be) truly staggering.

  51. Shiningone says

    @ Heretical Ryan

    Thanks for the info. I would of expected more than that. Perhaps “fame” is going to their heads? I realise that they have jobs to go to, to live and survive and may not have the time. However, if you run a show like this and people go to enough trouble to try and interact with them, at least you should put some time into returning the favour. It’s seems the only interaction they want is a few phones calls once a week. Do they have forum staff? I think they should. A few people who can pass on pertinent comments that they would otherwise not receive by phone. After all, we are all a group of people who strive for truth.

  52. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Shiningone #51:

    I do not trust Wikipedia

    /Clicks through to sources and their sources…
     
    The Johns Hopkins Manual of Gynecology and Obstetrics
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
    International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
    American Family Physician
     
     

    I am saying there IS a case of linear progression from conception that vastly out numbers the occurrences of unforeseeable natural termination.

    No. You wrote that one outcome is a foregone conclusion, so assuming the label at any point earlier doesn’t matter. That is false.
     
    Shiningone #37:

    Because we KNOW, from previous examples that after conception a human being is born 9 months later. It does NOT matter when we decide to call it a “person”.

  53. Shiningone says

    @ Evil God of the Fiery Cloud

    Your initial comment gave me the impression you were in agreement. I guess I was wrong, because this comment gives me the impression you are vehemently in disagreement with me. Feel free to show me where I am in error. I can not grow as a human being without knowing where my errors are.

  54. Shiningone says

    @ CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain

    I did NOT say, “I do not trust Wikipedia” please do not put words into my mouth. I said I do not trust Wikipedia as the source of all truth. Wikipedia can be edited by almost anyone who goes through a registration process. They are NOT the be all and end all of ultimate truth. I have seen MANY times where it display obvious bias and down right LIES.

    “No. You wrote that one outcome is a foregone conclusion, so assuming the label at any point earlier doesn’t matter. That is false.”

    No, again, putting words into my mouth. I never said the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I said we KNOW from previous examples that after conception a human being is born 9 months later. I am NOT trying to make a definitive statement here. You are being extremely pedantic.
    I tell you what, why don’t you go up to one of your friends who has just become pregnant and tell them, “hey you know what, the chances are you will lose that baby!”
    We do not act this way in real life. We KNOW that most pregnancies end in the birth of a human being. Sometimes are eagerness to be seen as right in forums out weighs are normal rational judgement in real life.

  55. paxoll says

    @Shiningone
    You don’t seem to understand how rights work. A handicapped person has no more rights than anyone else. They have the right to public services, if this requires a special door and ramp into a building, those things are not special rights. We choose to give handicapped people stuff to make their lives easier, this stuff is a gift not a right. They have the right or not to ask for that stuff. A woman has the right to not have sex, she equally has the right to not be pregnant. BOTH are uses of her body, therefore both are within her rights of bodily autonomy. And as you so poignantly ignored, you can lose your bodily autonomy, when you are committing a crime. A woman being raped gets to insist on not being raped in an escalating force necessary to end the rape. This means that if asked to have sex that person will likely stop when asked BUT, if not the woman can escalate to the point where she has every RIGHT to kill the person raping her. Her rights are independent of the other person, it doesn’t matter if the rapist is a violent criminal, an obtuse boyfriend, a drunk, or a mentally handicapped person who doesn’t know what they are doing.
     
    Choosing to be protected from pregancy is no different than choosing a “safe” car or using a seatbelt. So let me fix your quote for you

    We do not CHOOSE to be in a car accident, just as we do not choose to get pregnant while being protected

    Regardless of the risk, choosing to have sex or drive is NOT choosing to be in a car accident. Secondly this is completely irrelevant. Because if we are in an “accident” we do not force people to live with the consequences. We do whatever the persons wants/needs medically, it is their choice, although with car accident victims we typically don’t let them choose to die like we do with pregnancies.
     
    You really need to spend time learning what a fallacy is because you are wrong twice.

    Rape is NOT the biggest possible violation of her body. On a purely physical level it does not even come close.

    Do you understand what violation is? It is a mental state. I can put my hand on a friends shoulder, it is not a violation, if they do not want it there, it is a violation. It has nothing to do with any “physical level”. Women have sex for fun all the time and it is not a violation, therefore it is not the physical act of sex that is causing it to be a violation of her. The level of violation is entirely emotional, and the whole reason rape is such a significant cause of PTSD is because the level of violation is extremely high and it is hard to let go of those emotions. Which is why forcing a rape victim to stay pregnant is not an “appeal to emotion” it is a logical deduction that this continued violation of her body, which is 100% wrong regardless of how it came about, can be and usually is a worse violation than someone who got pregnant not from rape.
     

    They have the right to get pregnant or not get pregnant.

    No a woman has the right to participate or not participate in sex. She also has the right to donate or not donate her body for 9 months to the health of another person if she does get pregnant.

    I believe women have rights.

    You patently do not understand rights at all since you are so intent on removing them when they have committed no crime.

    She does not have a right to KILL that human being before it is born.

    She has the right to use the minimum necessary force to stop having her bodily autonomy violated, just like if she was being raped, up to and including killing the person violating her.

  56. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Shiningone – 57
    Yes, I suppose the difficulty of relaying context in written form has once again come to bite me in the ass. To be clear, I am in violent disagreement with the Pro-Life/Anti-Choice position. Since the subject is something I feel passionately about I preferred to let some of the more argumentative people on this forum have at it, in order to preclude my temper from getting me to argue unproductively. However, I couldn’t stop from being a bit snarky and for that I apologize.
    Now admittedly, a lot of my objections to PL/AC comes from my resistance to people projecting their religious sensibilities (or what they pretend are their religious sensibilities) onto others. Since yer not a theist apparently I guess ye get to somewhat sidestep the bulk of that.
    However, over my many years of engaging PL/AC-ers, I quickly discovered that their stated purpose of protecting the unborn falls away rather quickly and as ye continue to peel away the layers of that onion and at its core is a desire to control a woman’s sexuality (or at the worst, punish her for being sexual at all). I’ve yet to meet anyone from that camp who gives a flying fuck about the bairn once it’s out, it’s only when it’s unborn that it’s sacred. Once they baby is born it becomes “hope you’re not looking for a handout” and such things. Such people don’t care about the children, and they CERTAINLY don’t care about the women. In pretty much every case I’ve ever come across, it is not a position born out of compassion, but rather one of control. At least in yer first post, that subtext was closer to the surface than most I’ve engaged with.
    Ye talk about a woman has a right to get pregnant or not get pregnant, but is every engagement of the sexual intercourse a cosmic license agreement to have a baby? What if the couple practices safe sex, the dude wearing a condom and the lady being on the pill or whatnot? They took precautions which, while reliable, aren’t 100%. Does that small chance a baby could result mean now an unprepared couple (or just the woman) must now own something they actively sought to avoid? Or are they allowed to engage the services of a clinic since it was pretty clear they were trying to be safe? This plays into my earlier point about controlling a woman’s sexuality, as the amount of times I’ve heard “tough luck whore. If you didn’t want a child maybe you should have kept your legs closed” is more than I can count.
    Yer argument seems dependent on a conceit which I don’t share, namely that personhood starts at the moment of conception. Granted I, the Evil God of the Fiery Cloud, cannot personally mark the exact delineation between “cluster of cells” and “ok, now that’s a person.” Hell, I’ve got a niece and nephews all under the age of 5 and I barely consider them to be people (wakka wakka). However, I don’t accept that something that’s not a person YET is due the same legal protections.
    Yer take on a rape victim being forced to carry her child to term as a form of therapy(?) is so mind bogglingly and insultingly stupid I was pretty convinced ye were a troll.

  57. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Shiningone #58:

    I did NOT say, “I do not trust Wikipedia”
    […]
    I have seen MANY times where it display obvious bias and down right LIES.

    Uh-huh.
     

    please do not put words into my mouth

    I have no interest in your orifaces.
     

    You are being extremely pedantic.

    Your mouth and typing appendage(s) are in disagreement. That’s a you problem.

  58. Autish Dipankar says

    I notice that people are talking about relative rights. Actually, Tracie’s position solves all these conundrums. The fetus is using the woman’s body. Even if we believe that life begins at conception, and even if we believe that ejecting the fetus would cause its death, the question is whether the fetus can compel another person to surrender their body for the cause of its survival.

    For instance, suppose there was a person who was dying and the only way they could survive was to get an organ transplant. There was another person who was a perfect match. Can the dying person compel the matching potential donor to donate the organ? What about compel the person to donate blood? If we believe in the liberty of individuals, I would argue that even if a person is dying, they don’t actually have the right to unilaterally take another person’s body or use its parts without consent from the potential donor.

    Extending that analogy, a fetus may not be able to survive outside of the womb. However, that is actually irrelevant. The fact is that a fetus, even if it were a person, would not be allowed to compel the woman to surrender her body without her consent if it was outside the womb and the same standard should probably apply if it is in the womb. Any other position undermines the liberty of the woman.

    This also makes it clear why pregnancies arising from rape, incest, or those that jeopardize the health of the mother, e.g. ectopic pregnancies, are morally less ambiguous. If the mother never consented to the use of her body or is mortally threatened by the use, her non extension of consent seems very palatable.

    The issue arises when we consider cases where the woman changes her mind on a basis that seems flippant, ill thought out or even capricious or discriminatory. The point is while we may not agree with their basis of the decision, we still cannot compel a woman to give up use of her body without infringing on her liberties. The other point is that the standard is silent as to whether the fetus will die. Indeed, I would argue that if the fetus is a person at conception, then every effort should be made to rescue the fetus even if the woman withdraws consent. In practical terms, a first or second trimester fetus has no options so it means that a termination of pregnancy and a withdrawal of consent are indistinguishable under current technology. A third trimester fetus has more options, hence the stringent guidelines on third trimester abortions.

    The challenge for the state and for society is what happens when we have the technology to bring a fetus to full term without the use of womb. I don’t think anyone on the pro choice side is arguing that the exercise of the mothers rights must necessarily result in the termination of the fetus. However, this standard raises questions as to who bears the cost and the responsibility for a fetus brought to full term if the mother withdraws her consent.

  59. Shiningone says

    @ paxoll

    (sigh) I am not going to make this into a marathon. I do not have the time.
    Human rights of persons with disabilities: United Nations Human Rights:
    https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/disability/pages/disabilityindex.aspx

    “Choosing to be protected from pregancy is no different than choosing a “safe” car or using a seatbelt.”
    There is no such thing as a safe car. Using a seat belt makes no difference to whether of not you have an accident.

    I’m going to ignore all the other crap and cut to the last bit. Because you just don’t understand reason and logic.
    You are equating being raped with having a baby inside the body. A pregnancy is NOT a violation of a woman’s body.
    You are so far removed from any reasonable debate that I will not be answering any more of your questions.

  60. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @paxoll #62:

    For natural pregnancy loss [“Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say”]

     
    tl;dr excerpt

    it is important to note that human fertility is as numerically heterogeneous as it could possibly be. Some couples are infertile and some are highly fertile. Excessive attention to averages and neglect of variances fosters a misleading appreciation of reality. […] Furthermore, apparently ‘optimal’ conditions for conception may not maximise human biological fecundability. Other biological factors also contribute to reproductive heterogeneity in humans; however, even after controlling for age-related decline, fecundability remains highly variable […] In conclusion, apparent low fecundability in humans need not necessarily be caused by embryo mortality, but also defects of ovulation, mistimed coitus, or fertilisation failure. Where fecundability is low, any or all of these factors may contribute.
    […]
    Pregnancy loss and embryo mortality under natural conditions are real and substantial. However, estimates of 90%, 85%, 80%, 78%, 76%, and 70% total loss are excessive and not supported by available data.
     
    Estimates for clinical pregnancy loss are approximately 10–20%. For women of reproductive age, losses between implantation and clinical recognition are approximately 10–25%. Loss from implantation to birth is approximately one third.

  61. bluestar says

    Honey Tone #24 “And in many women, the “choice” to engage in sex isn’t very much free, though it falls short of rape.”

    I am a little confused what you mean here. If a woman does not consent; ‘choose’ to engage in sex, it IS rape by my (and I hope everyone’s) standard. Perhaps you can clarify?

  62. Shiningone says

    @ Evil God of the Fiery Cloud

    First of all, I thank you for your coherency. It is above the standard so far of what I have had to deal with in this blog.

    “However, over my many years of engaging PL/AC-ers, I quickly discovered that their stated purpose of protecting the unborn falls away rather quickly and as ye continue to peel away the layers of that onion and at its core is a desire to control a woman’s sexuality (or at the worst, punish her for being sexual at all). I’ve yet to meet anyone from that camp who gives a flying fuck about the bairn once it’s out, it’s only when it’s unborn that it’s sacred. Once they baby is born it becomes “hope you’re not looking for a handout” and such things”

    I absolutely agree with you. There is an extreme amount amount of men who think women are nothing more than incubators. Or, just there to satisfy their sexual needs. It is a consequence of men’s insecurity, ignorance, peer pressure and lack of empathy. It is pandemic. I do not believe it will change in our life time either. The insecurity, also is why they feel the need to be in control. As far as I am concerned, intelligent, women are by far superior to most men. They can read a room or an individual in a second.

    “Ye talk about a woman has a right to get pregnant or not get pregnant, but is every engagement of the sexual intercourse a cosmic license agreement to have a baby?”
    No, of course not. A woman has an absolute right to engage in sex just because it feels good. It DOES feel good! We would not do it for fun if it did not feel good. However, we also understand that it CAN, whether by intent or accident, lead to pregnancy. Unfortunately, the female of the human species has to CARRY that pregnancy. YES, she can choose to abort it. I am not saying she does not have that right. I am saying, I have personally met women who have gone through that experience and the majority have very negative feelings afterwards. Some where deep inside they KNOW that they have ended the life of a human being.

    “Yer take on a rape victim being forced to carry her child to term as a form of therapy(?)”
    I’m afraid you have misconstrued my meaning completely. All I am saying is, in the same way we have to recuperate from psychical damage, we also have to recuperate from having a human being gestating in the womb.

    I assure you, I am not a troll.

  63. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shiningone “A pregnancy is NOT a violation of a woman’s body”
     
    Yes it is… do you know how many diseases a woman can suffer as a direct result of being pregnant?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complications_of_pregnancy
     

    Do you know how much damage can be done to a woman’s body as a direct result of giving birth?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episiotomy
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetric_labor_complication

     

    Do you know how many things can kill a woman as a direct result of giving birth?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZAiBXKBhDw


     

    And even if everything goes as it is supposed to go, do you know how many biological alterations a woman’s body undergoes to accommodate the ALIEN INVASION of her insides and her biological system?

    https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/bodily-changes-during
    http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199778072.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199778072-e-23

     

    Pregnancy and postpartum recovery involve profound changes that affect nearly every aspect of a woman’s life. This chapter reviews the physical, hormonal, and physiological changes that occur in the course of normal pregnancy and the postpartum period. It describes the common symptoms and sensations associated with these changes and their implications in contributing to behavioral changes and psychopathology. It is important for health care providers to realize that, for a majority of women, somatic symptoms and some psychological symptoms represent normal physiological changes. The symptoms and complaints engendered by the changes of pregnancy are, in most cases, the natural consequence of bringing new life into the world. A familiarity with routine pregnancy-related changes will aid the mental health care provider in recognizing when behavioral patterns deviate from what is expected. Such understanding is key to assessing when such symptoms demand treatment and when they only call for reassurance and legitimization.

  64. paxoll says

    @Skycaptain;
    tl/dr excerpt

    An ideal future investigation of fetal wastage is easy to imagine: daily assessment of EPF and hCG for a cohort of women attempting to get pregnant. Easier said than done! Consider what such a study would require: a reliable assay for EPF, the enrollment of thousands of women, collection of and accurate assessment of thousands of samples, and more. Perhaps these technical and logistical barriers can be overcome soon. In the meantime, we can recognize that there is strong circumstantial evidence that human fetal wastage is likely between 50 and 75%. At the same time, we can recognize along with Dr. Jarvis that this conclusion lacks definitive proof and that additional investigations and scrutiny are needed.

  65. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Shiningone – 66
    I think a big part of the problem I have with the argument ye’ve been making (and one’s like it) is that it puts the “rights” of the unborn ahead of the woman whose body it’s using. I mean, as a dude, no one can force me to give up my kidney or something to my Dad should he need it, and unlike a zygote, my Dad is indisputably a person. In that vein is it really ok to force a woman to carry a baby that’s developing just because she’s got the equipment for it if she doesn’t want it there?

    As fart as the rape victim thing goes, perhaps I did misunderstand ye but I still think it’s absurd to expect a rape victim to have to carry the child of the person who raped her to term. Granted yes, I can agree that the vast majority of the women I’ve known who’ve had abortions agonized over the decision and even in a couple cases regretted it after the fact. However, weighing the psychological damage of having an abortion vs. being expected (or forced) to carry a baby conceived under such circumstances to term is fucking insane to me.
    If she CHOOSES to have the kid, great I guess. But expecting an already traumatized woman to go through with it saying “it’s for the best” is tone deaf at best and psychotic at worst.

  66. paxoll says

    @Shiningone good job proving my point from your link.

    The protection guaranteed in other human rights treaties, and grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should apply to all. Persons with disabilities have, however, remained largely ‘invisible’, often side-lined in the rights debate and unable to enjoy the full range of human rights.

    In recent years, there has been a revolutionary change in approach, globally, to close the protection gap and ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the same standards of equality, rights and dignity as everyone else.

  67. says

    @autishd:

    I sometimes wonder whether the human inability to comprehend large numbers contributes to some of the confusion with concepts related to the creation of the Universe or about evolution.

    something that helped innoculate me from some of the incredulity of those struggling with evolution was a quote from nobel biochemist george wald that i picked up in high school biology (which was unmolested by religion despite being a religious school):

    time is in fact the hero of the plot. the time in which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. what we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. given so much time, the “impossible” become possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. one has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.

    if one is wedded to an earth of only a few thousand or even tens of thousands of years, you will never appreciate the enormity of the number of trials nature has been allowed perform. (just google wald’s quote for a list of creation sites struggling with it.) the shorter kindred version that i use as an email sig comes from star trek:tng‘s lt. data:

    given an infinite amount of time, all that is possible must happen..

    tracy also touched on the concept of conditional probabilities with her combination lock analogy, where the outcome of a trial affects the probability the next trial — the completion of one step increases the likelihood of reaching the next. those struggling with evolution are used to thinking only in terms of coin flips or dice rolls, where the probabilities are independent, and no trial affects the probability of another. so they get needlessly stuck on the puzzle of the so-called “whirlwind in a junkyard”, because of course “creation” must be a singular event or period.

  68. Shiningone says

    @ Ronald Kyle

    Yes we are aware of the rare dangers that can happen. I made that comment because paxoll was suggesting that a women being pregnant was the same as someone raping her.

  69. paxoll says

    @Shiningone

    A pregnancy is NOT a violation of a woman’s body.

    Don’t think we need to hear anything else from this troll. I explained in detail a violation is when physical touch is “unwanted”, a pregnancy that is unwanted is a violation of a womans bodily autonomy. At this point,

    I’m going to ignore all the other crap and cut to the last bit.

    if you are not going to admit your bullshit has been refuted, and continue with baseless assertions like the top quote, and you cannot even maintain consistency in your position.
     

    YES, she can choose to abort it. I am not saying she does not have that right.

    vs

    She does not have a right to KILL that human being before it is born

     

    However, in the same way people have to spend time to recuperate from damage inflicted on them from violence, a woman should also have to spend time in carrying the child to full term.

    vs

    All I am saying is, in the same way we have to recuperate from psychical damage, we also have to recuperate from having a human being gestating in the womb

     

    I assure you, I am not a troll.

    The evidence indicates otherwise.

  70. Ronald Kyle says

    For people who think abortion is not biblical you are wrong. The bible does not consider a fetus to be a human being. According to this MITZVAH, if someone causes a woman to abort he is not punished as he would if he caused death to a person.
    ⬛ Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
     

    Judah impregnated his daughter-in-law after he contracted her as a street prostitute and when he found out she was pregnant (but no knowing it was by him) he ordered her burning ALONG WITH her fetuses
    ⬛ Genesis 38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
     

    The bible describes a way to cause a woman to abort if she gets pregnant not from her husband
    ⬛ Numbers 5:12-31 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him….And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD….and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse…and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot…and when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
     

    The bible does not consider a baby under one month old to be a person
    ⬛ Leviticus 27:2-6 …. the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old….And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
    ⬛ Numbers 3:15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.

  71. t90bb says

    couple quickies////////….

    Shining…..Glad your here but don’t be an asshole. I am sensing a bit of a ‘tude right off. Also this is not Matt’s forum and the fact the hosts don’t always come here is not evidence of fame going to their head as you suggested. They have lives and like to get away from argument and debate from time to time. It seems that since you showed up here the world should stop???

    Last….has anyone remained in contact with Brojo??? A big shot from his server (EF) aka DD called Talk Heathen yesterday with a similar play we have been getting from the cookieman. If its not obvious to some Brojo and EF and cookieboy are members of that debate server……I HOPE they continue interacting with AXE and the forum. Its a ton of fun dealing with the presupps….lol. Here is a taste of EF aka DD in action on that server. A true Christian in action!

  72. justatheist says

    I`m troubled with Tracie`s position to abortion. As a father I would feel need to defend unborn child if the pregnancy is at its last months. My position is that a unborn child should have some rights starting from the point where it can potentially feel something. After this point it becomes a question of compromizing between the interests of the mother and the unborn baby with a goal of maximizing everyone`s wellbeing (as Matt would say). This is pretty much the legal position on the country I live in (Finland) where mother has pretty much full freedom to decide on abortion upto 12th pregnancy week and after this the pregnancy is allowed only with special reasons such as health risks, defects on the fetus, mother`s young age etc. Abortion after 24th pregnancy week is not allowed. After 24th week fetus can potentially survive under proper medical care. Thus I suppose also using Tracie`s criteria she would not allow abortion after this point (or would she?).

    No one is giving formal content for rising a child. Still after you have a baby it becomes your responsibility as a parent. My thinking is that similar responsibility of taking care of your child should apply to pregnancy as well after the fetus becomes potentially a feeling being. Where to draw the line is not black and white but it can be set eg. based on the development of the nervous system.

    My questions for Tracie would be as follows:
    1) Why parenthood doesn`t require giving any consent and yet it becomes your responsibility – yet one should have full rights without limitations to end pregnancy even after fetus can feel pain etc?

    You might argue that everyone has the right to decide about their own body. Thus if fetus can`t survive on its own then it is destined to die. However, what if in the future the fetus could be put to a artifician womb? Wouldn`t it create very odd situation where mothers would want abortion and they would still have a duty to take care of the baby? I suppose one could say that this is not any contradiction: sure mothers have right to decide for their body but they still have responsibility to rise the child.

  73. Shiningone says

    @ Evil God of the Fiery Cloud

    “I think a big part of the problem I have with the argument ye’ve been making (and one’s like it) is that it puts the “rights” of the unborn ahead of the woman whose body it’s using.”

    That is the problem in your assessment of the argument. The, unborn, is NOT USING the woman’s body. It had NO CHOICE in being there. It did NOT decide to be in the womb. The woman CHOOSE to put the unborn in there.

    “I mean, as a dude, no one can force me to give up my kidney or something to my Dad should he need it, and unlike a zygote, my Dad is indisputably a person.”
    Really! I would of pegged you as a women. Based on your previous comments. I’m still not sure you arn’t. Or two people!
    No, no one can force you to give up your kidney. But would you, if his life depended on it?
    It is very telling that people like you use words like fetus and zygote, as if by labelling them something different than a soon to be born human being it justifies your inhumanity. Your “Dad” would not EXIST if he did not go through the same process that you give such disregard to.

    “In that vein is it really ok to force a woman to carry a baby that’s developing just because she’s got the equipment for it if she doesn’t want it there?”
    We are not FORCING a woman to carry a baby. Nature has determined that women should carry babies. If she does not want it, she can abort it, but she should understand that she is KILLING a human being.

    “As fart as the rape victim thing goes, perhaps I did misunderstand ye but I still think it’s absurd to expect a rape victim to have to carry the child of the person who raped her to term.”
    I’ll ignore the fart. No, it is NOT absurd to expect a rape victim to carry a child to term. The child had NO CHOICE in who impregnated the woman. The child is innocent of the situation. How is rape the fault of the child?

    “However, weighing the psychological damage of having an abortion vs. being expected (or forced) to carry a baby conceived under such circumstances to term is fucking insane to me.”

    Lets get one thing straight. Again. I am not suggesting that a woman should be FORCED to do anything. What I am saying is woman who are pregnant have no right to KILL the unborn human being. You talk about psychological damage of a women vs being expected to carry a baby under such circumstances and COMPLETELY ignore the the elephant in the room, namely the UNBORN CHILD. You in NO WAY consider the rights of it. You in NO WAY consider the psychological damage of it. You in NO WAY consider the physical DEATH OF IT. It is extreme hypocrisy to focus on the rights of the woman and ignore the rights of the yet to be born human being.

  74. Shiningone says

    @ paxoll

    “good job proving my point from your link.”

    I have not proven your point. We give special rights to handicap people. If you can not see this then we are done.

  75. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shiningone “Yes we are aware of the rare dangers that can happen”
     

    They are not rare at all… have you read this?
    http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199778072.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199778072-e-23
     

    Pregnancy and postpartum recovery involve profound changes that affect nearly every aspect of a woman’s life. This chapter reviews the physical, hormonal, and physiological changes that occur in the course of normal pregnancy and the postpartum period…..

  76. justatheist says

    @ Shiningone

    Surely baby is using mothers body regardless of how it got there. It is also false to say that woman choose to have a baby. You can say this only afther women has had a change to detect that she is pregnant and decided not to have an abortion.

    P.S. You can read my position to abortion above. I do not consider that embryo that has no nervous system should has any rights. The righs start when it becomes a feeling being.

  77. Shiningone says

    @ t90bb

    Since I have been here ( one day ) you appear to be the only ASS HOLE. Introducing your self by insulting me is a fucking dick move. I am not even going to bother…. nvm. Thanks for pointing out who NOT to give the time of day.

  78. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @paxoll #68:
    I see. Thank you for clarifying your emphasis of the article’s reviews.

  79. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Shiningone – 76
    Okey dokey…

    That is the problem in your assessment of the argument. The, unborn, is NOT USING the woman’s body. It had NO CHOICE in being there. It did NOT decide to be in the womb. The woman CHOOSE to put the unborn in there.

    Did she “choose” in all cases? Or is this again a case of sexual intercourse acting as a cosmic license agreement to be pregnant as ye denied earlier? Yer points are becoming a bit muddled.

    Really! I would of pegged you as a women. Based on your previous comments. I’m still not sure you arn’t. Or two people!

    Alas I am not a woman, though I play one in video games. Also I’ve got long luxurious hair that’s the envy of many of my female friends. It’s really my only good quality I suppose. But I digress…

    No, no one can force you to give up your kidney. But would you, if his life depended on it?
    It is very telling that people like you use words like fetus and zygote, as if by labelling them something different than a soon to be born human being it justifies your inhumanity. Your “Dad” would not EXIST if he did not go through the same process that you give such disregard to.

    No need for the quotes. The gentleman in this hypothetical is actually my Dad. But would I if he needed a kidney? Probably I guess. I drink way more than he does and kinda need it more, plus he’s old and has had a good run. But whether I would or not is secondary to the issue that no one can force me to give it up. That’s what was relevant to this conversation.
    In any event, yes I use those terms (fetus/zygote/embryo/whathaveye) because that’s what it fucking is. I appreciate ye citing it as an example of my inhumanity though. I’ve had a kinda fucked up life and have a somewhat blaise outlook on death which can make it appear that way, I guess. Over a year ago my own sister lost her first pregnancy early on and I’ll admit my only real concern was for its effect on her. I didn’t grieve for the “child” because I didn’t regard it as a “thing” yet.

    We are not FORCING a woman to carry a baby. Nature has determined that women should carry babies. If she does not want it, she can abort it, but she should understand that she is KILLING a human being.

    Setting aside that “Nature” doesn’t seem to have a problem axing unviable fetuses, I don’t agree. I don’t recognize an early stage fetus as a human being yet. Again, I don’t think it’s a decision to be entered into lightly, but I think framing it as murder is a step too far.

    Lets get one thing straight. Again. I am not suggesting that a woman should be FORCED to do anything. What I am saying is woman who are pregnant have no right to KILL the unborn human being.

    I struggle to see how ye don’t see denying a woman’s agency to control what goes on inside her own body so she can bring a new life form to term which may or may not have ended up there with her consent and will cause lasting a permanent changes to her body as “forcing her” to do something. I can’t be forced to give up my kidney to save my Dad, but a pregnant woman is shit out of luck?

    You talk about psychological damage of a women vs being expected to carry a baby under such circumstances and COMPLETELY ignore the the elephant in the room, namely the UNBORN CHILD. You in NO WAY consider the rights of it. You in NO WAY consider the psychological damage of it. You in NO WAY consider the physical DEATH OF IT. It is extreme hypocrisy to focus on the rights of the woman and ignore the rights of the yet to be born human being.

    Guilty on one level, I suppose. I refuse to put the rights of a prospective person ahead of those of an actual person. Ye, by contrast, seem to be all too happy to deny a woman agency because SHE doesn’t matter compared to a potentiality.

  80. t90bb says

    79 Shining…..

    Oh and nice to meet you too. Showing up on the board misstating this as Matt’s forum, warning him you were here to point out his foibles, and taking cheap shots at the hosts was endearing. I see I am already in your head. Nice.

  81. Ronald Kyle says

    @Sheningone “Nature has determined that women should carry babies. If she does not want it, she can abort it, but she should understand that she is KILLING a human being.”

    Nature also determines that a tapeworm should be carried by humans in their stomachs.

    No SHE is not killing the fetus…. NATURE is… all the woman is doing is remove the PARASITE from inside her … NATURE decreed that the fetus cannot continue to function without SUCKING THE BLOOD out of the woman and causing her body to be ABUSED by the needs of the parasite to continue to FEED OFF of her body.

    A fetus is no more a human being than a CANCER tumor…. it is a lump of cells that keep metastasized.

  82. Loveromates says

    People like Shiningone remind me of this Catholic from patheos who believed in life began at conception. He was extreme to the point that he would support banning morning after pills.

    I don’t support abortion, but I try not to be black and white about it. After all, I have to place the benefits including the suffering of a full grown human over a potential one. I am not an atheist, and I can see that. I don’t understand why religious people cannot.

    Everyone here is careful with Shiningone. His reasoning was almost identical to the Catholic guy I dealt with. He attempted to show me he only argued from scientific evidence. He then ended up revealing his true religious motive behind his “logical reasoning”. He acted as if emotional intelligence has no place in his discussion.

    I feel like Shiningone is doing the same here.

  83. Ronald Kyle says

    @Sheninigone “Good job pointing out the irrelevant”
     

    Why good sir… you are doing it all the time… you are misrepresenting facts and using emotional terms that have absolutely no relevance to the issue of abortion or pregnancy…
     

    “KILLING human being”…. when it is neither killing nor is it a human being
     

    “Nature”… well “nature” also is responsible for the fact that abortion is an option (or even spontaneous too) and “nature” is responsible for what happens after the abortion and “nature” is AN IDIOT…. because if it were not for “nature” human reproduction would be a lot less disastrous and so many fetuses are aborted spontaneously or that millions of babies die before they are 5 years old.
     

    So please… do not pretend that you are doing this because you care about “nature”… you are doing it because you think it is not biblical. But the bible proves you wrong….
     

    The God of the bible is an infanticidal killer who genocided entire populations of babies on numerous occasions in the fairy tales…. he also COMMANDS the genocide of babies so as to ethnically cleanse real-estate plots he wants to portion out in return for people kissing his arse.
    ⬛ Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
    ⬛ 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling
     

    The celestial slave monger of the bible even threatens to make people EAT BABIES
    ⬛ Leviticus 26:14-32 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandmentt… I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children … And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.😱😱
     

    The celestial ethnic cleanser COMMANDS stoning to death of children
    ⬛ Deuteronomy 21:18-21 if a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, … And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

  84. t90bb says

    hahhaha….oreo aka cokkieboy, brojo, DD aka EF, shining……all cut from the same cloth (I mean server!)…lol…….I wish they would all just grow a set and be honest about their beliefs and agenda. It seems if you believe in Jesus you immediately become pussified!!!!……

  85. Ronald Kyle says

    @t90bb “It seems if you believe in Jesus you immediately become pussified”
     

    Not just pussified 😜…. but also become mendacious dissimulators and huckstering charlatans… they learn it right from the FOUNDING FATHERS themselves…
     

    Paul the real creator of the myth

    1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
     

     

    Eusebius, Emperor Constantine’s bishop

    How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.

     

    Martin Luther the founder of Protestantism

    What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

  86. logicman2537 says

    I did not understand How Tracie thinks she is racist against native Americans. I didn’t hear her say that she disliked or had hatred for native Americans at all. I don’t get it.
    It seems that a few people on the AE don’t understand what racism is. I have heard Matt D say that everyone is racist because they can tell someone’s race by their speech and skin color. Someone noticing that other people are a different race is not racism. Racism is prejudice or hate of someone based on their race, or believeing that a certain race is superior to another.
    What did Tracy do that made her feel she was racist against native Americans?

  87. says

    Hi Shiningone. In your opening post (#4), you said the following:

    Once the woman MADE THAT CHOICE [to have unprotected sex], her rights to end [the pregnancy] prematurely are forfeited.

    Could you please present evidence for why making this choice leads to a woman losing her rights? In that very same post you stated that your argument is “based on logic and reason, NOT appeals to emotion,” so I’m really looking forward to a rational case. Thanks in advance.

  88. cameron says

    On abortion,

    I have read many of the comments above and support a woman’s right to choose but I am unsure of the ethics in some circumstances. I’m new to this forum so apologies if I don’t follow some convention I’m meant to.

    First as a teenager (quite a few decades ago now) I was looking through a surgical procedures text book (even then out of date). The book dated back to a time before ultrasound and had a number of procedures (disturbingly well illustrated) that would be applied if the baby was not going to be able to be delivered and was say stuck because of rare conditions that cause enormous heads etc. The procedures (there were several) involved devices to break up the skull or garrote the baby and break it up to facilitate delivery of the parts. These were obviously last resort and used to save the woman’s life. So anyone arguing that abortion even late term abortion is murder needs to contend with this fact. That clearly in the 50’s doctors considered the mothers life of the babies, every time. It was certainly considered the ethical norm to consider the mothers life as paramount. And this is in a time when not much could be known about the baby before the birth.

    In addition to this there have been a couple of cases of children with extreme conditions being euthanized shortly after birth. I cannot remember the condition but basically the skin of the baby comes off with any touch or contact and none live beyond a year or so and that time in agony. In Belgium (I think) two such cases have resulted in these babies being euthanized. Obviously this was done without the child’s consent. Likewise I would assume that children terminally ill with cancer would be likely to be under do not resuscitate orders and that food or water may be cut off at some point. So again we as humans are not opposed to some grounds of ethical killing of babies (and I consider this to have been ethical- I’d go so far as to say that it would have been unethical not to do so and I grieve for the unnecessary suffering some babies are put through in countries like mine that would not allow this but would force them to suffer).

    Having said all of this I do find myself having some sympathy with the view that once the child has a certainly level of consciousness it deserves some rights. We can avoid conception in most cases and should consider that if you can’t be bothered to take a pill or use a condom and you don’t plan to because well I can always get an abortion then a) that’s reckless behavior and if nothing else you weaken the position of women who are raped from having the proceedure due to the perception that abortion is being used as a method of contraception. Of course the day after pill I would consider part of that responsibility and you can find yourself pregnant in spite of contraception. I again wouldn’t prohibit it I just think society is right to frown on threatening this casually (not that this is many women).

    I do understand Tracey’s arguments about this and on one level agree with them but I still find it unethical to kill a baby late term. Now unethical is a matter of degree, we run a real risk of slippery slope arguments so I’m not sure if I’m right or my paternal instincts are kicking in and giving me some bias here. I’d appreciate some thoughts on a couple of concerns here.

    Above someone commented about giving up some of your rights upon conception. I’m inclined to agree but not entirely if the kid is profoundly disabled? If you are a heroine addict and are in no position to raise a child? Obviously in these cases an early term abortion would be the best option.

    I know a very large lady who got very ill and was send to hospital only to find she was in labor, hard to believe I know but true (I’m not sure if her weight stopped periods or something but I thought it rude to inquire). Now if she didn’t want to be a mother at that moment and under some of the commenters arguments would she/should she have the right to abort a full term baby. In this context I would assume abortion would carry the same or similar risk to actual birth, this being the case then even if under Rowe vs Wade she may have the legal right does she have the ethical right? Remember she is still going to have to deliver the baby or have a C section whether the baby is dead or alive.

    So I suppose my Question is once the fetus is genuinely viable let’s say 32 weeks to be generous (I’ve no idea where a baby will 95% of the time survive if born premature) then would this not be a similar case? Now for my argument to work the risks of delivering the baby would have to be equal to or less than the risks of the abortion. So lets say a baby at 32 weeks can be delivered and survive reliably with C section but not natural birth then my argument would go out the window as I cannot see imposing a C section specifically on the mother as ethical.

    Anyway that’s my feelings and thoughts, as I said I’m open to change my mind as I’m not sure if my feelings are clouding my judgement so would appreciate some thoughts of others.

  89. oreoman1987 says

    “hahhaha….oreo aka cokkieboy, brojo, DD aka EF, shining……all cut from the same cloth (I mean server!)…lol…….I wish they would all just grow a set and be honest about their beliefs and agenda. It seems if you believe in Jesus you immediately become pussified!!!!……”

    Where did I ever defend Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity?

    Did you read my posts carefully about the issues of epistemology?

  90. t90bb says

    93….cookieboy…..

    I sure did, as well as your anti muslim rantings….sorry I blew your cover. You time is up.

  91. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    Re: Shiningone says January 20, 2019 at 7:29 pm
    .
    Generally I’m with you. I would have presented some things differently.
    .
    “The unborn person has special rights because it had NO CHOICE in the position it is in.”
    .
    The Supreme Court decided (in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.” By prohibiting abortion after fetal viability the state is exercising its legitimate interest in protecting the life of the fetus.
    .
    “It did not get to choose to be in the womb of a woman.”
    .
    Right. And, like born children, the unborn are not legally competent. They can’t form consent or intent.
    .
    “That position was forced on it by the CHOICE of the woman. Once the woman MADE THAT CHOICE, her rights to end it prematurely are forfeited.”
    .
    In all US jurisdictions a woman may obtain an abortion on demand before the viability of the fetus.
    .
    “Once she makes that choice her rights are superseded by the rights of the unborn person. She has NO RIGHT to kill it.”
    .
    Generally true. It varies by state but generally if the woman waits until the fetus becomes viable the state favors the rights of the fetus. Physicians are barred from performing such abortions.
    .
    ”However, in the same way people have to spend time to recuperate from damage inflicted on them from violence, a woman should also have to spend time in carrying the child to full term.”
    .
    That doesn’t register well with me.
    .
    .
    Shiningone says January 21, 2019 at 7:19 am
    .
    “This is irrelevant. Because we KNOW, from previous examples that after conception a human being is born 9 months later. It does NOT matter when we decide to call it a “person”. The label of it, has nothing to do with what it is and what it will be.”
    .
    When its life becomes worthy of legal protection is rather important. That was an important part of the Supreme Court decisions. They basically decided that the life of a fetus becomes worthy of protection at the point of viability.
    .
    .
    Shiningone says January 21, 2019 at 8:35 am
    .
    “We do not CHOOSE to be in a car accident, just as we do not choose to get pregnant while being protected. We DO KNOW that both can happen. If you want to be 100% sure of not having a car accident, then do not USE the car.”
    .
    I am with you here. Every rational person knows that when they get into a car there is some risk of being in an accident. When one gets into a car one is accepting that risk. Yes, a responsible person/society tries to reduce the risk, with driver licensing, insurance, etc. If one gets into a car unprepared for the risks then one is being irresponsible.
    .
    Remember, people in cars cause accidents and accidents in cars cause people. *ba-dum tsshh*
    .
    .
    Shiningone says January 21, 2019 at 12:54 pm
    .
    “A pregnancy is NOT a violation of a woman’s body.”
    .
    I agree. This whole “violation” spin is rather bizarre. It seems to be a co-opting of rhetoric and emotion from the topic of rape for use in this topic. Pregnancy is the natural process by which ALL of us came to be. How can a fetus with no competence to make decisions be “violating” someone. Do we give gifts to expectant mothers at “violation showers”? “Mother, tell me again how happy you and father were when you found out I was violating you.” Pregnancy is not rape. A fetus is not a rapist.
    .
    Shiningone says January 21, 2019 at 1:38 pm
    .
    “I assure you, I am not a troll.”
    .
    Agreed.
    .
    .
    Shiningone says January 21, 2019 at 3:05 pm
    .
    “The, unborn, is NOT USING the woman’s body. It had NO CHOICE in being there. It did NOT decide to be in the womb. The woman CHOOSE to put the unborn in there.”
    .
    Right, the unborn are not competent to make such a choice. And are not accountable.
    .
    The mother chose to engage in an activity that could and did result in the unborn being there.
    .
    “We are not FORCING a woman to carry a baby. Nature has determined that women should carry babies. If she does not want it, she can abort it, but she should understand that she is KILLING a human being.”
    .
    In most states the state intervenes to bar physicians from performing abortions after viability. Seeing that she can obtain an abortion on demand before viability then, correct, we are not forcing a woman to carry a baby.
    .
    (Personally I don’t see a moral problem aborting a 23 day old embryo. But aborting a 36 week old fetus is getting uncomfortably close to murder. Where’s the dividing point? It’s a tough question. The courts have given a legal answer, the time of “viability”. It seems to be a practical, workable compromise. I made a video touching the subject a while back.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-GcyQTaBg4
    To be fair, in this week’s show Tracie seems to be more aware of the law.)
    .
    “What I am saying is woman who are pregnant have no right to KILL the unborn human being.”
    .
    Agreed. (i.e. after viability)
    .
    “You talk about psychological damage of a women vs being expected to carry a baby under such circumstances and COMPLETELY ignore the the elephant in the room, namely the UNBORN CHILD.”
    .
    Yes. There appears to be a conscious effort by some pro-choicers to force an unmindfullness of even the late term unborn.
    .
    Cheers.
    .

  92. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Wiggle Puppy in 2
    Agreed. And then, ask them how they got from “a god” to “Jesus and Yahweh” instead of the gods of the humanoid aliens of Rigel 7.

    To Sean Rachar in 15
    Imagine these two scenarios. Scenario #1: I’m a god, and I create a person, Bob, purposefully so that they suffer a constant physical pain for their entire life. Scenario #2: I don’t create Bob. There’s a vast difference between these two scenarios. Creating life in such a way that the created person will suffer needlessly is wrong. Not creating life in the first place is fine.


    To Shiningone

    Regarding post #4

    Once the woman MADE THAT CHOICE [to have unprotected sex], her rights to end [the pregnancy] prematurely are forfeited.

    I’m somewhat sympthatic to your position.

    For a IMO rock-solid rebuttal, let me broach the other common pro-abortion rights argument, and see how you repsond.

    The fetus doesn’t have a functioning brain until about month 6. No brain -> no mind -> no rights. It’s just a hunk of meat. The fetus doesn’t even have neurons until about month 3. On any scientifically-grounded standard of life and death and consciousnessness, the fetus should have no legal consideration as a separate human being until month 6, and beyond all doubt no consideration until month 3. In other words, the only way to arrive at some other conclusion is some supernatural nonsense like the existence of souls, or some other equally ridiculous moral or scientific nonsense.

    A pregnancy is NOT a violation of a woman’s body.

    Why not? If they don’t want that in their body, how is that not a fair description?

    The, unborn, is NOT USING the woman’s body. It had NO CHOICE in being there. It did NOT decide to be in the womb. The woman CHOOSE to put the unborn in there.

    It’s still using the woman’s body. Your implicit argument here is non-seuqitir. Doesn’t matter if it choice anything or not. It’s still there, and it’s still persisting off the woman’s body.

    It is very telling that people like you use words like fetus and zygote, as if by labelling them something different than a soon to be born human being it justifies your inhumanity.

    I think it’s very important to distinguish between a hunk of flesh without a brain, vs a real live person with a brain. The functioning brain is what gives each person their humanity. Without the brain, it’s just a hunk of flesh with no intrinsic value.

  93. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @ suedoenimm3 – 94

    Yes. There appears to be a conscious effort by some pro-choicers to force an unmindfullness of even the late term unborn.

    I’m not sure if yer accusing myself or anyone else here of it, but to be clear that’s not what I’m arguing. I suspect ye and I might agree as to viability.
    One of my primary issues with Shiningone is that he’s(?) placing the line all the way at the beginning.

  94. t90bb says

    96……Evil…..The male is the head of the family like Jezass is the head of the church, lol. Women are subservient. They have a special duty….to give birth and raise children. What don’t you understand???. LOL…….why would ANY pregnancy EVER be ended??? Its gawds plan. seyz so right der in dat book…da hookie babbleee!

  95. Monocle Smile says

    I see suedoenimm3 is back and is still lying.
    This person claims all pro-choice people are A-OK with a fetus having its head chopped off as it exits the womb. I have asked this person several times to point out anyone, especially in these threads, who holds this position, but I’ve gotten nothing but silence.

  96. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says January 21, 2019 at 7:56 pm
    .
    “I’m not sure if yer accusing myself or anyone else here of it, but to be clear that’s not what I’m arguing. I suspect ye and I might agree as to viability.”
    .
    Not accusing you. I think Tracie and Jen are in the “There’s no elephant” category. In the car accident analogy in previous episodes it seems they purposely spun it to not include an second party.
    .
    It’s a hard question, where to draw the line. The current law seems to me like an acceptable compromise. I don’t think anybody has made a good argument that the viability limit is a hardship.
    .
    In this weeks episode Tracie seemed to accept that the law bars abortion after viability. But she expressed her personal disagreement. It seems she has no qualms about abortion up to the instant before birth. Matt seemed to dance back from such a position in a previous episode.
    .
    “One of my primary issues with Shiningone is that he’s(?) placing the line all the way at the beginning.”
    .
    You know, I’m not sure. I can’t definitely tell from what he has written so far. One thing he wrote was a little ambiguous. Maybe we’ll find out in further responses.
    .
    Cheers
    .

  97. oreoman1987 says

    “I sure did, as well as your anti muslim rantings….sorry I blew your cover. You time is up.“

    Then I’m not sure how you can come to the conclusions that you did.

  98. Monocle Smile says

    @sue

    In this weeks episode Tracie seemed to accept that the law bars abortion after viability. But she expressed her personal disagreement. It seems she has no qualms about abortion up to the instant before birth. Matt seemed to dance back from such a position in a previous episode.

    No, you’re just not understanding at all. The hosts are just okay with a woman requesting a C-section right after viability. Loads of godbots are not okay with this, either. I don’t know why you think anyone is fine with killing a fetus an instant before birth. That’s a direct question that needs to be asked.

  99. cameron says

    For the guy the rang in about the personal incredulity re: evolution,

    He made a comment about extremophiles being too unlikely. There was a set of experiments carried out with bacteria in which they seeded each generation by transferring a small amount from each test tube to a new test tube with a different feed stock. In one of these examples they added a toxin, this killed off all but a tiny fraction of the bacteria which tolerated the toxin. They then over a number of weeks added more and more of the toxin. Eventually the bacteria not only evolved to take the toxin but actually adapted to feed off it. A further generation become dependent on the toxin or they’d be a die off of much of the population. I don’t see how extremeophiles are any more problematic than this and experiment done over a couple of months. Different generations of these were genetically tracked and they know what genes were modified, what mutations were added to make the changes. He seems to have some idea that there is some barrier to adaptation, something holding a door up saying no this gene cannot change ever.

    He also fails to see how a creator is even more unlikely. But at least he appears to have read up on it. I do find it equally as remarkable but it’s not unlikely in a very big and old universe and once evolution has started its hard to stop.

    Also, Dawkins wrote a program in which he tries to randomly generate a line from Shakespeare and at the same time breeds from successful attempts and keeps those generations that are closest to the right sentence. This took less than a minute to generate the sentence (old computers too) and the other kept spitting out nonsense. Cumulative selection works.

  100. Honey Tone says

    Bluestar #67:

    Honey Tone #24 “And in many women, the “choice” to engage in sex isn’t very much free, though it falls short of rape.”
    I am a little confused what you mean here. If a woman does not consent; ‘choose’ to engage in sex, it IS rape by my (and I hope everyone’s) standard. Perhaps you can clarify?

    I wasn’t talking at all about rape. The tone of the posts to which I was responding imply that ANY time a woman with child-bearing capability engages in sex it’s just her simple, free and unfettered choice. So, If she doesn’t just choose to not engage in sex, if she gets pregnant she must therefore suffer the consequence to full term.

    I was talking about quality of choice. Lots of serious things affect choice. For social, cultural, economic, and other factors (including personal mental issues) a woman sometimes engages in sex without objection. Obligation, relationship protection, lack of power are a few. The woman might not be really interested, or she doesnt feel she can refuse, or she just doesn’t want to end up pregnant (or pregnant again) or she has been assured she cannot become pregnant (as happened to my best friend’s wife @ 35 years ago), or her mind ain’t right, or any number of other reasons. And there’s a wide age range for fertile females with varying physical, emotional and mental conditions.

    I was attacking the simplistic concept of “Gee, I think I’ll get laid tonight,” for every woman who ends up pregnant.

  101. Yasmin Mohammed says

    However far this infinite chain is prolonged, it will still have the attributes of neediness, dependency, and origination in time. A chain from the very nature of which autonomy and freedom from need do not arise can never put on the garment of being until it connects with one who is in his essence absolutely free of need— with a being who possesses the attributes of **divinity** and who is only a cause and not an effect.

    Without the existence of such an unconditional being, the source of all causes and the foundation of all existence, the order of creation cannot be explained.

    For further research – click >>> http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari/lesson-7-finiteness-chain-causality

  102. Heretical Ryan says

    Oh good. It looks like Oreoman is back.

    I guess we can look forward to another hundred posts of epistemological sophistry.

  103. Shiningone says

    @ suedoenimm3

    First of all let me thank you for being the first here to be logical enough to see my view point. As far as the “law” goes, yes I agree they “compromise” In my mind they do not represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not to mention they represent the law for a country that continues to flout international law. I digress.
    There seems to be strong resistance here to my view that rights should be given to the unborn human being from the moment of conception. I am not taking this position from a “legal” point of view. I am taking it from a reality, everyday life point of view. When a woman takes a pregnancy test and finds that it is positive she says, “yes! I’m going to have a baby!” or “shit! I’m going to have a baby!” depending on her life circumstances. She does NOT say “yes! I’m going to have a pile of lifeless parasitical meat that is going to violate my body for 6 months, then have a real human for a further 3 months.”
    We ALL know, that what it generally means is another human being will be born. We know this because there is seven and half billion of us that went through the same process. It is a natural process of creation.
    We buy seeds, and plant them because we know they will germinate and become plants and trees that can feed us. Arguing over the labels we use for it during it’s stages is irrelevant to what we KNOW is the eventual outcome.
    Human beings continue to “change” even after birth. Should we now have laws that say someone isn’t who they are after 7 years because most cells in their body have been replaced?
    Lets expand on the car driving analogy. Suppose I get into a car drunk. I made that choice to get into the car and drive it. Now when I get pulled over, what is going to be my excuse for not facing the consequences? I can not be blamed for drink driving because the alcohol I drank was flavourless so it’s not REAL alcohol. Or, I can not be blamed for drink driving because I did not drink alcohol, I consumed, sugar, yeast, water and potatoes. We KNOW alcohol makes us drunk, saying it is not alcohol it is sugar, yeast, water and potatoes does not detract from the effect it eventually has.
    We KNOW having intercourse can lead to the natural process of the creation of another human being.
    Abortion is a selfish act.

  104. Ronald Kyle says

    @Sheninigone “Abortion is a selfish act”…

    Life is a selfish act… so what?

    @Sheninigone “I am taking it from a reality, everyday life point of view. When a woman takes a pregnancy test …. She does NOT say ….”

    When a woman eats a bar of chocolate she says Yummm, Mmmm… she does not say I have just eaten a lump of fat and sugar and processed vegetable that is going to go through my system and in a few hours will travel through my intestines and then I’ll have to defecate it out.

    From an “everyday life point of view” nobody thinks about the REALITY of anything… so you are NOT “taking it from a reality”… you are taking it from IDEOLOGY and romanticizing and elevating the whole process to something that it is not a REALITY…. so you are the FURTHEST from “taking it from a reality”….

    The reality of a pregnancy is that it is a danger fraught process that is LIFE CHANGING and ENDANGERING in numerous ways more than just ROMANTICALLY and poetically… it is as much of a body invasion as having cancer or having a major parasitic infection.

    And yes… it is selfish for a human being to want to get rid of a tapeworm coiling around the intestines… and so it is for a woman to not want to have a parasite feeding off her body and altering her physiology and psychology and endangering her even MORTALLY.

    But as much as it is her choice to get rid of a tapeworm so it is her prerogative to get rid of a parasite that happens to have human DNA.

    It is not YOUR business to regulate and MORALIZE claptrap to SHAME and GUILT women into doing what they do not want to do and what could even kill them or alter their life trajectory just because they made a mistake as meaningless and pointless and harmless as eating a bar of chocolate.

    So go bark up another tree and leave women alone to decide what is good for them without your patronizing self-righteousness and scientifically benighted taboos even contradicted by your books of ancient fables.

  105. Ronald Kyle says

    @Sheninigone “To allow abortion is to deny our humanity”

    What is “humanity”… again you are romanticizing and fantasizing… humanity is a pernicious predatory animal that has been raping and pillaging and massacring and huckstering and wreaking mayhem on each other and on flora and fauna for hundreds of millennia.

  106. Shiningone says

    Just so everyone knows. I will not be responding to people who are completely irrational, abusive, childish or petty.

  107. Ronald Kyle says

    @Yasmin Muhammed “Without the existence of such an unconditional being”

    OK… let’s grant you that just for argument’s sake… but why then do you proceed to make the added assumption that this being is the hallucinations of Muhammed which is based on the hallucinations of Moses and Paul???

    Why don’t assume that this being is a separate god and Muhammad’s delusion is THE DEVIL who tricked Muhammad and Moses and Paul???

    Or why don’t you think this being is Hanuman or Quetzalcoatl or Kali???

    @Yasmin Muhammed “the order of creation cannot be explained”

    Just because YOU cannot explain something does not mean that you get to make whatever assumption about it to fit whatever FAKERY you were inculcated into.

    When you cannot explain something, you do not just pull out FABLES fabricated by desert dwelling brigands and cutthroats as the “explanation”.

  108. Ronald Kyle says

    @Sheninigone “people … are completely irrational, abusive, childish … petty.”

    See… now you are describing humanity quite well…although your self-righteousness disables you from realizing that you are also included in that description.

  109. says

    Shiningone, the reason I asked if you were wanted to maximize the number of potential people was because you had stated that it is irrelevant when a fertilized egg becomes a person, since we know that if it continues developing ‘successfully’, it will become a person. I would understand considering that irrelevant if you valued creating as many people as possible, and I’ve seen people make such arguments.
     
    Since you’ve clarified that is not your position, I see two other main reasons that would lead to saying that it’s irrelevant when a fertilized egg becomes a person. The one that seems to be the case is that you didn’t see the difference between a ‘human’ and a ‘person’, and so didn’t understand what was being asked. The other is that you believe that there is some sort of soul that attaches itself to a fertilized egg, and which is the actual ‘person’.
     
    A third possibility would be that you are putting value, not on when a person comes into existence, but on when a specific number of steps that will probably lead up to a person have taken place, which coincidentally happens to be the point at which a soul attaches to a body according to many religious groups. This may be a result of coming up with justifications for a position that you acquired early on and may not have fully evaluated why you have it to begin with.
     
    Addressing the most likely issue, you seem to be conflating ‘human’ and ‘person’, and the distinction between these concepts is vital to understanding the issue. In this context, a ‘person’ basically means an intelligent self-aware agent who values certain states of the universe in favor of other states. In everyday life, the people we interact with are humans, and the humans we interact with are people. There is a strong correlation there, but they are not the same thing. A sufficiently intelligent non-human animal could be a person, as could an AI, or any other process that creates a functional mind. A human without a brain could not be a person in this context.
     
    The person is what most people value, not the fact that DNA coding for a human is present in a cell. Otherwise you wouldn’t care if someone deleted your uploaded mind, but would want them to hook up to life support and sustain the body your mind was uploaded from, even though an earthquake caused a building collapse to crush the brain you were uploaded from right after the brain scan, because that human body would be what you really valued.
     
    Thus people not objecting to abortions of human fetuses when a mind has not yet developed, because there isn’t a ‘person’ being harmed. It’s the same if my head were to get crushed. When considering a future where that has occurred, I do not object to people removing the body that once contained me from life support, since the pattern of brain activity that I currently am would no longer exist, nor any successor brain activity descended from my current brain state. ‘I’ would be dead already, and the living human maintained on life support is not a person, and there are better uses for the resources that are going into maintaining the body. Those resources would be better directed towards other things I actually valued when I was alive, and not a mindless human, which I do not value. You could just donate the organs to benefit existing people, for instance, and use the life support machines to save people.
     
    Confusion comes in when people don’t realize that a concept they have contains internal complexity that they weren’t aware of, or that they have mistaken ideas that do not match reality. Understanding the distinctions between concepts and having an accurate understanding of reality is necessary for us to correctly assess what actually optimizes our values. This helps prevent us from doing things like going around causing harm to people that actually exist in favor of people who don’t exist, for instance.
     
    As time has gone on, and we’ve learned more about reality, and how mistaken or simplistic our understandings were, we’ve found ourselves faced with questions that we find difficult to answer and which are important to our ethical decisions. These issues have always been there, we just didn’t realize it before, and our lack of understanding undermined our ability to make decisions that are aligned with what we actually value.

  110. t90bb says

    Monkeyshines…..so you show up here and take shots at the hosts and generally act the asshole…..and then want to dismiss others for rudeness and pettiness?? If I didnt know better I would bet you are a CHRISTIAN!

    abortion denies our humanity?? but the following???

    If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

    2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

    IS TOTALLY KOSHER RIGHT??? you poor fool

  111. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    Shiningone says January 22, 2019 at 6:50 am
    .
    First of all let me thank you for being the first here to be logical enough to see my view point.
    .
    De nada. 😉
    .
    “As far as the “law” goes, yes I agree they “compromise” In my mind they do not represent the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not to mention they represent the law for a country that continues to flout international law. I digress.”
    .
    Hmm. OK.
    .
    “There seems to be strong resistance here to my view that rights should be given to the unborn human being from the moment of conception.”
    .
    OK. That further clarifies your position.
    .
    For the record, my personal view is that zygotes, blastula, gastrula, etc. are not “person” enough or “child” enough to merit protection by the state.
    .
    “I am not taking this position from a “legal” point of view.”
    .
    OK. I’ll point out that the law is basically the best practical compromise and documented consensus a society can arrived at. Yes, the law is imperfect. But there are mechanisms in the law to change the law.
    .
    “I am taking it from a reality, everyday life point of view. When a woman takes a pregnancy test and finds that it is positive she says, “yes! I’m going to have a baby!” or “shit! I’m going to have a baby!” depending on her life circumstances. She does NOT say “yes! I’m going to have a pile of lifeless parasitical meat that is going to violate my body for 6 months, then have a real human for a further 3 months.””
    .
    Generally true. But we are seeing some people advancing the view that a fetus is a violation, a parasite, and practically a rapist. And they are advancing that view as holding at every instant in a pregnancy. As I said before, I find that bizarre to say the least.
    .
    “We ALL know, that what it generally means is another human being will be born. We know this because there is seven and half billion of us that went through the same process. It is a natural process of creation.”
    .
    Agreed. (as before.)
    .
    “… Should we now have laws that say someone isn’t who they are after 7 years because most cells in their body have been replaced? … I can not be blamed for drink driving because the alcohol I drank was flavourless so it’s not REAL alcohol. …. saying it is not alcohol it is sugar, yeast, water and potatoes does not detract from the effect it eventually has.”
    .
    These analogies don’t quite resonate with me. I think you are effectively saying that a zygote has all the same human value that a born baby has. And its life is thus worthy of protection by the state. And something about ingredients too….?
    .
    “Abortion is a selfish act.”
    .
    After the time of viability, I agree with you. A late term fetus is scarcely different from a born baby. The baby in the womb is the figurative elephant in the room that some want to deny. Denying/disregarding the value of a child’s life is selfish to say the least.
    .
    Prohibiting later term abortions is not a particular hardship for women given that they can obtain an abortion on demand prior to viability and that there are exceptions to the prohibitions for the health of the mother and for cases of fetal defects.
    .
    The above are the points I want to make.
    .
    You regard the life at all stages – going back to the fertilized egg – as being morally due state protection. I think we have a disagreement here that will persist. 🙂 The above were the points I wanted to make. I don’t feel that I must “correct” or persuade you. Your view neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
    .
    Out of curiosity though, apparently you find a fertilized egg to be a precious human being but individual sperm and eggs not. Why is that? What is the definite thing the makes/causes/results in the transition?
    .
    Shiningone says January 22, 2019 at 6:57 am
    .
    “I should add….To allow abortion is to deny our humanity.”
    .
    I don’t quite follow that.
    .
    Shiningone says January 22, 2019 at 9:04 am
    .
    “Just so everyone knows. I will not be responding to people who are completely irrational, abusive, childish or petty.”
    .
    Yes. That is a good practice.
    .
    Cheers.
    .

  112. Shiningone says

    @ suedoenimm3

    “These analogies don’t quite resonate with me. I think you are effectively saying that a zygote has all the same human value that a born baby has. And its life is thus worthy of protection by the state. And something about ingredients too….?”

    To begin with, I have already stated I do not take this view from a legal point of view. I have said nothing about protection by the state, nor have I implied it. Also, at no time have I mentioned a “zygote”, that is your label ( as well as others ) for the first stage of conception. I agree, that is a perfectly fine label if you wish to use it. What I am saying is, EVERYONE puts the SAME human value on it as they do a born baby, UNTIL, they want to get rid of it prematurely.
    Go tell you wife, your sister, your female friend who is expecting, “just get rid of it, it’s ONLY a zygote!” Do you see what I’m saying? This is the difference between examining this process as a purely chemical/biological event vs the actual creation of a human being. Am I to treat YOU as a human being or just a collection of biological matter with electrical impulses?
    Can you not see the similarly between the ingredients of alcohol that produces the effect of drunkenness, to the ingredients of the unborn, early stage of a human beings, to the effect of an actual human being? Perhaps that was to crude an analogy.
    People who agree with abortion treat the ingredients of a human, i.e. the zygote, the embryo etc. as singular states of matter, that do not change. They IGNORE the fact that it is a PROCESS. A process of creation, of another human being just like them.

    “You regard the life at all stages – going back to the fertilized egg – as being morally due state protection.”
    Again! with your obsession of state and law, of which I have mentioned neither.

    “apparently you find a fertilized egg to be a precious human being but individual sperm and eggs not.”
    I have never mentioned individual sperm and eggs.

    “I should add….To allow abortion is to deny our humanity.”
    “I don’t quite follow that.”
    We are human beings. To deny the process that makes us human beings is to deny are existence as human beings.

  113. Shiningone says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal

    I think I answered that in 108. If you think it’s not satisfactory, you will have to be more specific.

    “A pregnancy is NOT a violation of a woman’s body.”

    “Why not? If they don’t want that in their body, how is that not a fair description?”

    Because pregnancy is not a violation. It is the creation of another human being. They choose to begin the process.

    “It’s still using the woman’s body. Your implicit argument here is non-seuqitir. Doesn’t matter if it choice anything or not. It’s still there, and it’s still persisting off the woman’s body.”

    Tell that to your sister who is expecting. ” Get rid of that hunk of meat, it is just USING you”

  114. Ronald Kyle says

    @suedoenimm3 “…some people advancing the view that a fetus is … a parasite… I find that bizarre to say the least”
     
    Why? By definition

    parasitism is a kind of symbiosis, a close and persistent long-term biological interaction between the parasite and its host. Unlike commensalism and mutualism, the parasitic relationship harms the host, either feeding on it or, as in the case of intestinal parasites, consuming some of its food.

     
    Does that sound familiar???

  115. buddyward says

    @Shiningone

    What I am saying is, EVERYONE puts the SAME human value on it as they do a born baby, UNTIL, they want to get rid of it prematurely.

    I do not know how you can make this generalization. Those who do not want to get pregnant to begin with may not have put that same value. To say, that EVERYONE does this would require you to provide evidence that we all do.

  116. t90bb says

    monkeyshines…….

    ARE you a christian??? Are you using the holey babble as your foundation for morality????………

  117. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    When a woman takes a pregnancy test and finds that it is positive she says, “yes! I’m going to have a baby!” or “shit! I’m going to have a baby!” depending on her life circumstances. She does NOT say “yes! I’m going to have a pile of lifeless parasitical meat that is going to violate my body for 6 months, then have a real human for a further 3 months.”

    Some women do. Those women often get immediate abortions, or day-after pills, etc. You’re ignoring lots of evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative.

    We ALL know, that what it generally means is another human being will be born.

    No. Some of us have better knowledge of actual human biology, and know that after fertilization, 50% (or was it 80%, always forget the number) of fertilized eggs will not be born successfully because of spontaneous miscarriages.

    There seems to be strong resistance here to my view that rights should be given to the unborn human being from the moment of conception. I am not taking this position from a “legal” point of view. I am taking it from a reality, everyday life point of view.

    I don’t understand what you mean. Are you being merely descriptive observations, or are you making prescriptive arguments? It seems like you’re making prescriptive observations, aka normative claims, aka moral claims. Please clarify.

    I think I answered that in 108. If you think it’s not satisfactory, you will have to be more specific.

    You didn’t address my rebuttal directly at all. In other words: Do you have a problem with medical doctors who stop resuscitation attempts in hospital at brain death? It’s common practice to stop resuscitation attempts at that point, and it would be extremely silly to put every braindead body in the ER on life support. This seems to establish that what we really care about in human life is not the “live” part – when a doctor stops resuscitation in hospital, most of the cells of the body are still living. Men could even father children at this point (with some outside assistance). What we care about is that the part that makes them human and gives them their humanity – their mind – is gone. We know this because the brain is dead. Given all of this, why do you care what a women does with a hunk of flesh in her body that doesn’t have a brain? Human fetuses don’t have brains until about month 6, and they don’t even have neurons until about month 3. No brain -> no mind -> no person -> no moral consideration. It’s just a hunk of flesh, comparable in almost every way to a corpse in the emergency room when the doctor calls it and stops resuscitation attempts. What do you have to say to this, if anything?

  118. Shiningone says

    @ buddyward

    “I do not know how you can make this generalization. Those who do not want to get pregnant to begin with may not have put that same value. To say, that EVERYONE does this would require you to provide evidence that we all do.”

    Those who do not want to get pregnant do not have sex. Those who do not want to get pregnant but want to have the enjoyment of sex were protection. They are aware ( or should be ) that protection is not always 100% safe. They are also aware that when that protection fails, the result is the process of creation of a human being. Why are they so cautious of this? Because they know the value we put on the creation of human beings.
    There is, of course people who put NO value on life. That is another issue.
    If you find it hard to accept everyone puts value on the process of human creation, I suggest you take a trip to a maternity ward or an antenatal class and ask why people put value on it.

  119. Ronald Kyle says

    @Sheningone “They choose to begin the process”…

    You are again misrepresenting the facts… in cases where a woman wants an abortion she did not choose to begin the process… having sex is not choosing to begin the process… if the process is begun because of sex but the woman never intended to have a baby then that is not choosing to begin the process….. again you are LOADING terms that obfuscate…. are you doing this deliberately????

  120. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Why are they so cautious of this?

    STDs, for one. You’re ignoring that entirely. Second, because abortions and day-after pills are a big pain compared to using a condom, or a IUD, etc.

    If you find it hard to accept everyone puts value on the process of human creation,

    I think I’m a person, and I don’t place value on fertilization. For the 6 months, there is no brain, and it’s just a hunk of flesh. So, given that I think I’m a person, I think that I’m also a counterexample to your claim of “everyone”. I think you can find a lot more counterexamples too if you try to look for them.

  121. Shiningone says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal

    “Some women do. Those women often get immediate abortions, or day-after pills, etc. You’re ignoring lots of evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative.”
    My comment was context specific. Yes, we are aware that lots of women get immediate abortions, or day after pills.

    “No. Some of us have better knowledge of actual human biology, and know that after fertilization, 50% (or was it 80%, always forget the number) of fertilized eggs will not be born successfully because of spontaneous miscarriages.”
    Spontaneous miscarriages does not detract from the fact that intercourse is how we have offspring.

    “I don’t understand what you mean. Are you being merely descriptive observations, or are you making prescriptive arguments? It seems like you’re making prescriptive observations, aka normative claims, aka moral claims. Please clarify.”
    I am making prescriptive arguments about descriptive observations. Yes, people believe procreation as normal. Yes, people have moral feelings about procreation.

    “Do you have a problem with medical doctors who stop resuscitation attempts in hospital at brain death?”
    No I do not. Depending on the circumstances. This is of course a situation at the end of a human being’s life, NOT the beginning. No I do not compare the “hunk of flesh” of a brain dead person to the “hunk of flesh” of a yet to be born human as comparable.
    May I suggest you go up to your next family member who is expecting and ask them how they feel about the “hunk of flesh” in their body.

  122. Ronald Kyle says

    Sheningone says: Those who do not want to get pregnant do not have sex

    Bingo!!!! Now you have revealed yourself for what you are!!!
     

    Sheningone says: Why are they so cautious of this?

    Because they are aware that getting pregnant when you do not want to is STILL a bodily harm and having an abortion is a cost and inconvenience and psychological burden.
     

    Sheningone says: Because they know the value we put on the creation of human beings

    Yes… they are aware of the benighted unscientific GUILT loading and BLAMING and SHAMING that YOU engage in for your sky daddy delusion’s sake.
     

    Unfortunately for you, the crusade that you are trying to foment for the sake of your celestial slave monger is benighted even in that aspect too…. your own sky celestial ethnic cleanser is an INFANTICIDAL MANIAC on a monstrous scale…. he kills babies himself and he orders the genocide of babies in order to ethnically cleanse plots of land so as to give them people who kiss his arse.
     

    Your celestial ethnic cleanser makes people eat their children and orders them to stone to death children…. so this celestial slave monger of yours very obviously does not put the same value on life as you pretend that you do.
     

    ⬛ Leviticus 26:14-32 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandmentt… I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children … And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
    ⬛ Deuteronomy 21:18-21 if a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, … And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

  123. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Spontaneous miscarriages does not detract from the fact that intercourse is how we have offspring.

    But it surely contradicts the claim that you previously made. This is a sign of someone who cannot admit fault, and who resorts to redirections instead of answering rebuttal head-on. This is not a good sign.

    May I suggest you go up to your next family member who is expecting and ask them how they feel about the “hunk of flesh” in their body.

    My sister has had an abortion. She won’t have any problem with that characterization. We’ve had this discussion before.

    You’re also doing a fallacious emotional appeal, a redirection, a red herring, a non-sequitir, instead of responding directly to my argument “no brain -> no mind -> no intrinsic moral value”.

  124. buddyward says

    @Shinningone

    Those who do not want to get pregnant do not have sex. Those who do not want to get pregnant but want to have the enjoyment of sex were protection. They are aware ( or should be ) that protection is not always 100% safe. They are also aware that when that protection fails, the result is the process of creation of a human being. Why are they so cautious of this? Because they know the value we put on the creation of human beings.
    There is, of course people who put NO value on life. That is another issue.
    If you find it hard to accept everyone puts value on the process of human creation, I suggest you take a trip to a maternity ward or an antenatal class and ask why people put value on it.

    There is a whole industry built around those who do not want to get pregnant and want to have sex. Those who wear protection are not 100% guaranteed not to get pregnant. The fact that the protections are not guaranteed does not mean that those women want to get pregnant. The efficacy of birth control does not dictate the women’s desire to get pregnant. If you are going to assert that it is then please provide evidence instead of merely making assertions.

  125. Shiningone says

    @ Ronald Kyle

    As I warned people before, I will not be responding to people who are completely irrational, abusive, childish or petty. You have crossed that line.
    As a parting gift I will offer you this one thing. I am an atheist. I in no way believe in that “sky daddy” any more than I believe you could come up with a cogent, rational statement or question.

  126. Shiningone says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal

    “But it surely contradicts the claim that you previously made. This is a sign of someone who cannot admit fault, and who resorts to redirections instead of answering rebuttal head-on. This is not a good sign.”
    No, it is merely a clarification of my understanding of your point of view. A singular statement does not stand on it’s own as the ultimate truth. It is only a response to a specific question that can have many areas of qualification.

    My other statement was not meant as a specific request of you in particular, it was meant a generalisation.

  127. Loveromates says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    I think people like Sheningone are void of empathy. What appalls me the most is that he wants rape victims to endure pregnancy. That means without outside influence a female who was raped cannot make a decision for herself about keeping the zygote or aborting it.

    In other words, the rape victim has the raper’s sperm penetrating inside her body, fertilizing with her egg, and implanting on her uterus. That is it. She has no choice but keeping that zygote until it becomes a fetus and gets out of her body.

    I can understand why people oppose abortion on demand, and I am with them. However, to make a raped victim keep her pregnancy against her will is pathetic.

    If Sheningone is an atheist, he is very close to becoming a totalitarian communist.
    If Sheningone is a theist, he is very close to becoming a theocrat.

    People with this extreme mindset scare me. I hope Sheningone is not a physician or a pharmacist. Lots of women will suffer because of “moral virtue”.

  128. Shiningone says

    @ buddyward

    “There is a whole industry built around those who do not want to get pregnant and want to have sex. Those who wear protection are not 100% guaranteed not to get pregnant.”
    Yes and yes.

    “The fact that the protections are not guaranteed does not mean that those women want to get pregnant.”
    Of course it doesn’t. Those women DO NOT want to get pregnant. They do or should know that they are not 100% guaranteed as you said. I never said they do.

    “The efficacy of birth control does not dictate the women’s desire to get pregnant. If you are going to assert that it is then please provide evidence instead of merely making assertions.”

    I never did. I am presuming you have misunderstood my comments.

  129. Ronald Kyle says

    Sheningone says: There is, of course people who put NO value on life

    Yes… your celestial slave monger for one and his ill begotten son for another….
     
    ⬛ Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
     
    ⬛ Matthew 8:11-12 And I say unto you, … the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
     
    ⬛ Deuteronomy 22:20-21 … the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel……stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house…
     
    ⬛ Deuteronomy 20:14-18 ….thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones…. shalt thou take unto thyself… thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them… the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
     
    ⬛ 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling
     
    ⬛ Deuteronomy 13:1-15 … that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God…If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods… thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die…. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities… saying, Let us go and serve other gods… Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein… with the edge of the sword.

  130. t90bb says

    Monkeyshines wants us to believe he is and atheist…like cookieboy LOL…..hilarious….

    Scumbag comes here rips the hosts, insults other posters and then claims the high moral ground lol…….that kind hypocrisy reeks of theism and christianity in particular lol……

    monkeyshines…grow a set pal.

  131. Ronald Kyle says

    @Sheningone “I am an atheist”

    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂
    You are an abject liar… and a buffoon… QED!!!

  132. Shiningone says

    @ Loveromates
    I am sorry you felt the need to address someone else about your concerns about me, rather than me. Empathy is something I have in abundance, often to much, to my detriment. For some reason you all keep assuming that I want my position to be absolute law and forced on everyone. I DON’T. I am only pointing out MY position on the subject. I DO hope, others see it for what it is and agree with it.

    “What appalls me the most is that he wants rape victims to endure pregnancy. That means without outside influence a female who was raped cannot make a decision for herself about keeping the zygote or aborting it.”

    ANY women, REGARDLESS of her situation has the choice to make her own decisions. I agree with that 100%. However, in MY opinion, killing a yet to be born human being who had NOTHING to do with that rape is the wrong thing to do.
    I understand your emotion on this subject, I really do! There are many, many women who have had to go through this situation. To many! There should be NONE!
    There are also women who have gone though this and kept the pregnancy. I did a quick search and found this… https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/a-baby-from-rape-is-something-beautiful-from-something-terrible-1.3269157

    As I said, I do NOT WANT to MAKE rape victims keep their pregnancy against their will. It is THEIR choice. All I hope is that they fully understand what they are doing. In MY opinion, they have no right to kill a yet to be born human being who had NO choice in being in that situation.

    I find it odd that you call me Sheningone as Ronald Kyle does.

  133. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    As a parting gift I will offer you this one thing. I am an atheist.

    Currently, I don’t believe you.

    You still have not answered my challenge “no brain -> no mind -> no intrinsic value, e.g. no (intrinsic) moral consideration”.

  134. Shiningone says

    I have followed “The Atheist Experience” since it’s inception. I am saddened by the fact that on my first visit to it’s “official blog” that it has no moderator.

  135. Ronald Kyle says

    @Sheninigone “killing a yet to be born human being”

    There you go again with your insidious sleight of tongue and shenanigans of loaded equivocations deliberately measured to evoke guilt and shame and immoral pretenses of morality.

    This typical of liar for whatever sky daddy insanity you are deluded with.

    Your insistence on using equivocation in a deliberate manner like this bespeaks of your lying huckstering nature. QED!!!

  136. t90bb says

    142, Monkeyshines……YOU are saddened there is no moderator?? LOL…we are all saddened that you are saddened…have a cookie….

    I am glad you are here….now someone has worse spelling and grammar than me,.

  137. buddyward says

    @Shiningone

    You have not shown evidence that:

    EVERYONE puts the SAME human value on it as they do a born baby, UNTIL, they want to get rid of it prematurely.

    What you have shown is that women may know the value we put on creation of human beings. That does not mean that they also hold that value at that time. Knowing what everyone else may value does not mean the individual assigns the same value. An individual may decide later on to assign value but that does not mean they hold it now.

  138. Loctagge says

    I think that there is something of a double standard in the way Tracie accuses herself of racism when talking about the Native American drummer. By Tracie’s logic, it is a kind of racism of her to assume that her cultural standards are compatible with his: in his world, beating a drum and shouting is a call for peace, and the responsibility is on her if she assumes that his culture works the same way as ours does.

    But if Tracie is to apply that logic to herself, she should also apply it to the man with the drum. Regardless of whose protest it was, he should have considered the fact that his culture does not necessarily apply to ours. The fact is, beating a drum and shouting – especially during a protest – does not say “peace” to most people. In fact, we tend to associate a drumbeat with war, and I don’t think you have to do a lot of research to do that. So the responsibility is just as much on the drummer – if not more – for attempting to apply his own cultural logic to everyone else around.

    Does that make him racist? I would not go that far. Perhaps it makes him ignorant, although I’d say that very many cultures associate drumbeat with war, so I don’t know how he managed to be ignorant about that. But if we are to go with strong terms like “racist” or “xenophobic,” then we should treat him as someone as capable of being a responsible as the rest of us. Failing to do so would, in fact, be racism.

  139. buddyward says

    @Loctagge

    I think that Tracie’s point is that she is making judgements on the action of the drummer without having any cultural background knowledge on why he was doing it. She considers this as being racist. The drummer is not making any judgements on our culture.

    Personally, I would not call it racism. I would just call it a lack of understanding.

  140. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shiningone “As I said, I do NOT WANT to MAKE rape victims keep their pregnancy against their will”…

    No you just want to use loaded terms like “kill” to shame them and guilt them and inveigle and coerce and harass and spew immoral pretenses of morality.

    And you rally and wrangle to change the laws and lobby for the installation of immoral dastards and cads into the supreme courts around this country so that they will insidiously annul the freedoms and humanitarian laws of this land.

  141. Loctagge says

    @buddyward The drummer’s idea that he can start drumming for peace does not take into consideration the fact that most people would not take it that way. That is, in fact, a judgment. Very many people take it as an combative gesture, so he cannot simply sidestep the responsibility for doing something that has a volatile effect on those around him. If Tracie is willing to say “I was wrong to assume that this means peace in his culture,” then he should be willing to take responsibility and say “I was wrong to assume that other cultures would not see my actions as aggressive.”

  142. Loctagge says

    (PS. I meant if Tracie is willing to say “I was wrong to assume that this means war in his culture”)

  143. Ronald Kyle says

    @Locatagge

    Don’t you think those 16 years old children should have had a bit more respect for the age of the guy? What happened to respect and civility towards one’s elders?

    What about a bit of deference to the TRAGIC heritage that he comes from, and which those children should have been taught about?

    At the very least try to diffuse confrontation by not posturing with a smug smirk that I am sure reminds everyone of nothing less than the same one that numerous fascists have displayed to the objects of their disdain.

    How about not wearing EN MASSE that red hat symbol of current day fascists of the most imbecilic kind? Just as they consider the drum is a symbol of war, the hat is a symbol of derision and division for the rest of the country… and they know that… which is the reason they wore it.

  144. Loctagge says

    @RonaldKyle

    I don’t know. How about all that? Those are all tragic aspects of our history, but has very little to do with what we are talking about. But what the heck, let’s look at it point by point.

    1. “A 16 year old should have more respect for age of the guy.” Well, not if the guy is trying to incite violence, which was an understandable – even if incorrect – perception by the kid. Nobody – regardless of age – deserves respect when they are inciting violence.
    2. “Deference to the tragic heritage that the man comes from.” – Sure, but deference to history always takes a backseat when someone is inciting violence at a protest.
    3. “Don’t posture with a smug smirk.” – The same smug smirk would be lauded as stoic and calm if the man were trying to incite violence.
    4. “En masse red hat symbol etc.” – Yes. And I am not about to start supporting Trump or wearing his hat. But Trump supporters’ reasons are more complex than “hateful fascist murderer racists,” and conversation, not violence, is the way to solve this.

    Now, if you notice, the common thread among these is the “incite to violence” part. Which, as we established, the man was NOT doing. But you cannot blame someone for seeing it and taking it this way, since we live in a culture that tends to take it that way. And none of your points actually address that – they are empty talking points that solve nothing. Let’s not do that.

  145. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    Well, I anticipated coming back from work to find a shit show but I must admit I’m kinda surprised at the scope.
    On the other hand, I’m pleasantly surprised also that things are staying pretty on topic with shit discussed on the show.

  146. buddyward says

    @Loctagge

    The drummer’s idea that he can start drumming for peace does not take into consideration the fact that most people would not take it that way. That is, in fact, a judgment. Very many people take it as an combative gesture, so he cannot simply sidestep the responsibility for doing something that has a volatile effect on those around him. If Tracie is willing to say “I was wrong to assume that this means peace in his culture,” then he should be willing to take responsibility and say “I was wrong to assume that other cultures would not see my actions as aggressive.”

    Not taking something into consideration is not judgement. Judgement requires that you make a conclusion. The drummer did not make any conclusions about the people around him.

    If I do not take any consideration that you are in the room and I started playing my radio out loud, I am not making making any judgements towards you. Your presence might not even register in my mind. I am just being an asshole who is very inconsiderate.

  147. Loctagge says

    @buddyward

    Sure – but, like I said, I wouldn’t call him a racist. To be fair, I am not sure I would necessarily attribute his actions to being an asshole. Inconsiderate, maybe, although I think ignorant is a better word. He neglected to consider the differences in cultures, and that was part of why he did what he did. And I think that this may also apply to Tracie’s self-incrimination – neglecting to consider the difference in cultures. My only point is that it applies to both parties – and is, in neither case, racism.

  148. buddyward says

    @Loctagge

    Sure – but, like I said, I wouldn’t call him a racist. To be fair, I am not sure I would necessarily attribute his actions to being an asshole. Inconsiderate, maybe, although I think ignorant is a better word. He neglected to consider the differences in cultures, and that was part of why he did what he did. And I think that this may also apply to Tracie’s self-incrimination – neglecting to consider the difference in cultures. My only point is that it applies to both parties – and is, in neither case, racism.

    No one is calling the drummer a racist or an asshole. Not Tracie and certainly not me.

  149. Loctagge says

    @buddyward

    That doesn’t seem like an honest response. Your defense of the drummer is that he did not make any conclusions regarding the people around him, and simply did what he did without thinking about it. As a comparative example you brought up someone who just starts playing loud music without thinking about the people around him. You called that person an inconsiderate asshole. So, with all due respect, you did call the drummer an asshole.

    Your exact words –

    Not taking something into consideration is not judgement. Judgement requires that you make a conclusion. The drummer did not make any conclusions about the people around him.
    If I do not take any consideration that you are in the room and I started playing my radio out loud, I am not making making any judgements towards you. Your presence might not even register in my mind. I am just being an asshole who is very inconsiderate.

  150. Monocle Smile says

    @Loctagge

    But Trump supporters’ reasons are more complex than “hateful fascist murderer racists,”

    Before the election? Maybe.
    Today? I have a very hard time buying this. I guess you could also include “greedy corporate sociopaths” as well.

  151. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    hateful fascist murderer racists

    I have a hard time fathoming any other reason, and one of my longtime friends is probably a semi-closeted Trump supporter. I just had the most edifying, and horrifying, conversation with him, where he actually said that the immigrant caravan was an invading army, and it would be reasonable to just kill them all. I tried to point out that they’re not an army because they have no guns and have no intentions to change our political regime through violence (and no plans to even vote), and I also pointed out that our laws require us to take in refugees like that, and how our foreign policy is responsible for making many of the refugees in the first place, and all of this was unconvincing at best. The best that I got out of him was that we should change the law to not require the US to take in refugees. He said that they’re invaders because they’re here to take our resources, including land, water, and welfare. What do you say to someone like that? I also suggested in no uncertain terms that he might be a sociopath. I don’t know what else to say to that. I don’t know how else to explain that besides xenophobic fascist hateful murder-wanting racist fuckers. To correct Monocle Smile, I think that toxic masculinity is also vital ingredient with huge explanatory power for this group of persons.

    How else can you explain the extremely high levels of support for Trump among evangelicals? Trump is basically the anti-Christ incarnate, both in actions and personal history, including multiple marriages, divorces, affairs, molestation and sexual assault of women including underage girls, his constant pathological lying, etc. You can make the same argument for Roy Moore too, although Trump is a better example. Because of Trump, it’s abundantly clear that about a third of our country, and specifically the Evangelicals, are fucking horrible monsters. It’s like I’m in the Twilight Zone.

  152. Ian Butler says

    Firstly, I consider access to legal safe abortions a moral virtue, as they lead to better families, lower population stress, less crime, and especially the improvement of women’s lives. As long as the aborted fetus didn’t have brain waves capable of experiencing pain, no harm no foul.

    I don’t think viability is a good dividing line, it changes over time, fetal development is more predictable and more relevant. But a religious or romantic notion of human life as sacred can skew our judgement on this kind of thing. The right to die is another thorny issue that is hard to see rationally for the same reason.

    Secondly, was the guest co-host just flipping through her phone like a bored millennial, or was she actually looking up relevant information? Because it sure looked like the former to me!

    And thirdly, my wife and I had a delightful lunch with Enlightenment Liberal in the real world, and he is an actual person, and just as thoughtful and articulate in 3D as he is here!

  153. buddyward says

    @Loctagge

    That doesn’t seem like an honest response. Your defense of the drummer is that he did not make any conclusions regarding the people around him, and simply did what he did without thinking about it. As a comparative example you brought up someone who just starts playing loud music without thinking about the people around him. You called that person an inconsiderate asshole. So, with all due respect, you did call the drummer an asshole.

    I called myself an asshole not the drummer. The example that I presented is not exactly the same as the drummer. The drummer in his own words is beating the drum for peaceful purposes. I did not say I was playing the loud music for any benevolent reasons.

  154. walker says

    @shiningone Perhaps you should actually stop contradicting yourself and actually directly address others comments in response to yours. For instance, i would like you to actually address EL’s question.

  155. buddyward says

    @Ian Butler

    Secondly, was the guest co-host just flipping through her phone like a bored millennial, or was she actually looking up relevant information? Because it sure looked like the former to me!

    I noticed that as well. I also noticed that in many instances when the co-host tried to speak she gets cut off by the host as well as the caller. I observed that both in AXP and TalkHeathen. So perhaps it would be a good idea for the show to give the co-host a bit more opportunity to speak. To us, who have followed the show regularly, it might be a refreshing change to hear someone else’s view on things.

  156. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    Shiningone says January 22, 2019 at 2:21 pm
    .
    “To begin with, I have already stated I do not take this view from a legal point of view. I have said nothing about protection by the state, nor have I implied it.”
    .
    OK. But only the law has the power to force or prohibit peoples’ actions. So are you saying that abortion is immoral but you don’t care whether there are enforced legal prohibitions?
    .
    “Also, at no time have I mentioned a “zygote”, that is your label ( as well as others ) for the first stage of conception. I agree, that is a perfectly fine label if you wish to use it.”
    .
    ‘Zygote’ is just a word that means about the same as “fertilized egg”. My only intent was to effectively communicate in English. ‘Zygote’ is fewer keystrokes too.
    .
    “What I am saying is, EVERYONE puts the SAME human value on it as they do a born baby, UNTIL, they want to get rid of it prematurely.”
    .
    That’s not true. I for one don’t put the same value on a fertilized egg as a child. Sure a fertilized egg can become a child but it is not one yet.
    .
    “Go tell you wife, your sister, your female friend who is expecting, “just get rid of it, it’s ONLY a zygote!” Do you see what I’m saying?”
    .
    Not really. Sorry. For one thing, it would be her decision. Would I tell her to end a pregnancy she wanted? No way.
    .
    “This is the difference between examining this process as a purely chemical/biological event vs the actual creation of a human being. Am I to treat YOU as a human being or just a collection of biological matter with electrical impulses?”
    .
    I am both. In my view a human is a type of “biological matter with electrical impulses”. What makes a human different other than our DNA (and the intellect that that DNA leads to)? You say you are an atheist but what you say sounds somewhat dualist, like there is some magical extra essence or soul that makes us human.
    .
    “Can you not see the similarly between the ingredients of alcohol that produces the effect of drunkenness, to the ingredients of the unborn, early stage of a human beings, to the effect of an actual human being? Perhaps that was to crude an analogy.”
    .
    Yeah, I’m not following that. The foods we eat are also ingredients into the human being.
    .
    “People who agree with abortion treat the ingredients of a human, i.e. the zygote, the embryo etc. as singular states of matter, that do not change. They IGNORE the fact that it is a PROCESS. A process of creation, of another human being just like them.”
    .
    I don’t see how that follows. Obviously the egg, etc. change. Obviously it is a process. So it is not true that pro-choice people ingnore that it is a process. (I am pro-choice before viability, pro-life after viability.)
    .
    ‘Again! with your obsession of state and law, of which I have mentioned neither.”
    .
    So is your objection to abortion limited to shaming people? What should follow from your objection?
    .
    “I have never mentioned individual sperm and eggs.”
    .
    OK, but I did. I did in asking what I think was a reasonable question. They are ingredients in the process, right? Do you specifically not want to talk about sperm and unfertilized eggs?
    .
    “We are human beings. To deny the process that makes us human beings is to deny are existence as human beings.”
    .
    Which I don’t think applies to any of us. I don’t think anybody here denies that human procreation is a process.
    .
    .
    Cheers.
    .

  157. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Oh, while I’m here, I should rebut one of the claims made above in another way. The claim above was that fertilized eggs become humans. I rebutted that already by noting the spontaneous abortion rate is super high, like 50% or higher (forget the exact number). There’s also several other vital rebuttals. facts. If you believe, as shiningone probably does, that the soul enters the egg at fertilization, then he has some explaining to do.

    Sometimes the egg will split in the first few weeks. That’s how you get identical twins. What happens to the soul there? Do the twins share a single soul? Does Yahweh add another soul when the split happens?

    Sometimes there will be two fertilized eggs, and the two fertilized eggs will come together in the first few weeks, and combine together, and produce a single human being. It’s believed that in most cases, this produces an entirely normal human, and most people who are like this don’t even know about it. The formal scientific term is “human chimera”.

    There are several documented cases of this actually happening. IIRC, the first documented case was a woman who lost custody of her child because the DNA test came back saying that she wasn’t the mother, but that’s because the test was done on her blood and the DNA of her blood was different than the DNA of her ovaries and eggs, and that’s because she’s a human chimera.

    Do human chimeras have two souls? Does Yahweh take away one of the two souls when the eggs join together?

    So, most of the time, that fertilized eggs is spontaneously aborted and doesn’t become a human. Sometimes, a single fertilized egg will become two or more humans. And sometimes, a single fertilized egg will become half a human (human chimera). Based on this, it’s rather obvious to me that a fertilized egg shouldn’t be treated as a person at all. I’d lost to see a real religious person try to tap-dance their way through this intellectual minefield.

  158. Ronald Kyle says

    @Loctagge “none of your points actually address that – they are empty talking points that solve nothing. Let’s not do that”

    Questions!

    (1) Do you think all this would have happened had those16 years old kids not donned those imbecilic-fascism-symbols…. much like the bright-red swollen vulva of a female baboon on heat advertises (subconsciously, pretty much like those boys) her readiness for “engagement”?

    (2) Do you think any of this would have been an issue if those boys left the man alone and not stand in his face with a fascistic smug smirk wearing a red-swollen-vulva on their heads much like a female baboon sticks her swollen bright-red vuvla in a male baboon’s face?

    (3) Do you think all this would have been an issue had they had any respect left in their propagandized psyche for older people or for victims of their own history?

    As you can see these are the DIRECT CAUSES of the whole issue and not “empty talking points that solve nothing”… the first step to solving any problem is to understand the cause.

    Wearing a bright-red–vulva on one’s head is an advertisement inviting “engagement” and then to continue on with the “engagement” with further gesturings is the reason for all what happened.

  159. Loctagge says

    EnlightenmentLiberal

    Sometimes the egg will split in the first few weeks. That’s how you get identical twins. What happens to the soul there? Do the twins share a single soul? Does Yahweh add another soul when the split happens?

    – Pretty sure that the idea is that God ultimately decides that. You’re saying that God “adds another soul when the split happens.” But I think that it’s more like “this happens if God wants it to be two souls.” In other words, when the egg separates into twins, it’s BECAUSE God wanted it to become twins. Not the other way around. Let’s keep in mind that God is the decider in this case. He doesn’t have to add another soul when the egg splits. The egg splits BECAUSE God wants it to be two souls.

    You could make the same argument for other cases – God wanted it that way. And you could say that, in the case of a natural abortion, it’s because it’s God’s plan. You could ask “but why,” but the answer is always “it’s God’s plan.” You could then say “but that makes God a jerk” – but, since you’re using Yahweh, I’ll give you the Jewish response – “He is what he is.”

    I think that trying to use biological “what then” argument is a non-starter. You’ll only convince people who already agree with you. Tracie’s bodily autonomy argument is a lot stronger.

  160. says

    Shiningone, you have not addressed what I said. Do you recognize the distinction between ‘human’ and ‘person’? If not, vital elements of the situation are being lost in your model of reality. Unless, of course, you actually valued human cells in and of themselves, independent of whether they are generating a mind. You seem to think there is something like a vital spirit of ‘personhood’ that an embryo simply ‘has’, rather than that an embryo has the possibility to go on to generate a person in the future.
     
    Many people who get abortions are people who have already had children, or want to have children in the future, but are not currently in a situation where they can provide a good life for a child or for more children than they already have. They value other people, but they do not consider the embryo as a person, because they recognize that it has not developed to the point where it has created a person. So they make the decision to not go forward in creating a person who they would not be able to provide a good life for.
     
    We know that if that process continues forward ‘successfully’, then it will result in a person being created. Rather than continue that process and create a person, people can choose to abort the process before they create a person. That is the same whether they were to sterilize the eggs and/or sperm, or prevent them from coming into contact, or to cause the fertilization process to destroy the egg, or to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, or to flush out the growing embryo, or remove a fetus prior to a brain forming and generating a mind. In any of those cases, no person has come into existence who can be harmed.
     
    You’ve already stated that you don’t think we have an obligation to ensure the creation of possible people. Unless you think there is some sort of ‘essence’ of personhood imbued by the process of fertilization, what is it you object to?

  161. Monocle Smile says

    @EL

    He said that they’re invaders because they’re here to take our resources, including land, water, and welfare. What do you say to someone like that?

    Yeah, that’s truly bizarre, since this is true of literally everyone who comes to the country, including tourists. What’s more galling is that you live in the Bay, where like most of the urban west coast, real estate prices are driven up “artificially” by mostly Asian buyers who throw around cash and buy places for 10% more than list price as investment properties. These foreigners have a much more severe impact on our economy than this “caravan.” I assume your friend doesn’t have a problem with that…or at least, not the same problem.

  162. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Loctagge
    My only point is that it’s not sustainable to argue that the soul enters the fertilized egg at fertilization, and therefore their entire religious argument against the day-after pill falls apart.

  163. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shenanigans “I can not be blamed for drink driving because I did not drink alcohol, I consumed, sugar, yeast, water and potatoes. We KNOW alcohol makes us drunk, saying it is not alcohol it is sugar, yeast, water and potatoes does not detract from the effect it eventually has”
     

    Your analogy is in fact a direct argument against you… sugar and yeast and potatoes are indeed not alcohol…. alcohol is the result of those ingredients coming together and then undergoing a process of fermentation that takes time to complete and at any time BEFORE the completion of that process you do not have alcohol.
     

    Your argument taken at its “logical” level is like you saying that the police should book you for drunk driving because you were eating a sweet potato with some Marmite while driving.
     

    So if we use your argument you seem to think that eating sweet potatoes dipped in some Vegimite while driving means you should be booked for drunk driving because those ingredients together are alcohol in the making.
     

    If you think that a fetus that is THE INGREDIENTS for, but not yet, a human being is the same as a human being then according to your analogy you should be arrested for drunk driving for eating sweet potatoes laced with Bovril.
     

    Or maybe you want to shame and guilt people into stopping masturbation by calling it a GENOCIDE.

  164. RationalismRules says

    @Shiningone #41

    “when someone is shot, we don’t expect them to carry the bullet in their body until their body naturally expels it.”

    Of course we don’t, because a bullet is not going to turn into a human being. Logic! see, this is what it is, try using it.

    You attempted to equate carrying an unwanted pregnancy to full term with recuperating from bodily damage resulting from physical violence. Equating those two cases requires that you equate all of the case, not just the bits that serve your argument. If we regard the two cases as equivalent, then the unwanted physical material that has been introduced into the woman’s body is equivalent for the purposes of the comparison. To argue that the two cases should be treated differently is to refute your own attempt at equivalence.
     

    “at what point does a clump of cells become a ‘person’?”

    This is irrelevant. Because we KNOW, from previous examples that after conception a human being is born 9 months later. It does NOT matter when we decide to call it a “person”. The label of it, has nothing to do with what it is and what it will be.

    Proper use of logic and reasoning requires that you don’t conflate different ideas. A potential human being is not the same thing as an actual human being. A lump of coal has the potential to become a diamond, given the right circumstances – that does not mean that a lump of coal is the same as a diamond. A newly fertilized egg has the potential to develop into a human being, given the right circumstances – that does not mean that a newly fertilized egg is the same thing as a human being.

    The fertilized egg also has the potential to simply become waste material, as Sky Captain pointed out to you in post #48. You failed to understand his point, and of course blamed your failure on him, calling his point ‘incoherent’. There was nothing incoherent about his point: I had no trouble understanding it.

    By arguing that a potential human being is in itself a human being, and by arguing that it is irrelevant at what point we nominate it ‘a person’, you have just invalidated your own arbitrary point of division ie. conception. Every unfertilized egg and every individual spermatozoa also have the potential, given the right circumstances, to turn into a human being. So each and every one of them, by your ‘logic’, should be accorded the rights of a human being.
     
    (You really should stop pontificating about logic and reason until you actually get a better grasp of it.)

  165. Ronald Kyle says

    @Loctagge “Now, if you notice, the common thread among these is the “incite to violence” part. Which, as we established, the man was NOT doing. But you cannot blame someone for seeing it and taking it this way, since we live in a culture that tends to take it that way
     
    Yes indeed and wearing a bright-red symbol of imbecilic fascism on one’s head and strutting about in public with it is an incitement to violence and you cannot blame someone for seeing it and taking it this way, since we live in a culture that tends to take it that way

  166. RationalismRules says

    @Shiningone
    #147

    As I said, I do NOT WANT to MAKE rape victims keep their pregnancy against their will. It is THEIR choice.

    Compare this with your opening comment #4 (I’ve emphasized the key sentence):

    Now, on to the subject of rape. As we know, human reproduction is a natural event, we also know that human recovery from damage to are bodies is also a natural event. I am in no way saying the act of rape is in any way natural or condoned. However, in the same way people have to spend time to recuperate from damage inflicted on them from violence, a woman should also have to spend time in carrying the child to full term. The recuperation time of effects of violence can be longer than the term of pregnancy. She is completely within her rights to pass responsibility of the BORN child on to someone else.

    Not: “A woman has the choice whether or not to carry the child to full term.”
    But: “A woman should HAVE TO spend time in carrying the child to full term.”

    Not: “I think a woman should choose to carry the child to full term.”
    But: “A woman should HAVE TO spend time in carrying the child to full term.”

    Not: “In my opinion, the right thing to do is to carry the child to full term.”
    But: “”A woman should HAVE TO spend time in carrying the child to full term.”

    You can’t even keep your own story straight.

  167. RationalismRules says

    @Ronald Kyle
    Good points, well made, in #88 and #179. Good to see you have other strings to your bow, not just the bible quotes and the ranting.
    (Also, I think your Marmite reference gives away your nationality. For me, it would have been Vegemite…)

  168. says

    To extend a charitable interpretation for Shiningone, maybe their position has changed a little over the course of the thread, but they felt uncomfortable admitting it? It’s not uncommon for people who have updated their positions quietly to just sort of proceed as if that’s always been their position, because they feel embarrassed to admit prior error. Which is kind of sad, because admitting to learning and growth shouldn’t feel shameful, though based on how many people treat admissions of error, I understand why people learn to do that.
     
    If anything, seeing someone is capable of admitting mistakes central to issues they felt strongly about speaks to a strength that a lot of people don’t have. It’s also a good sign that disagreements with them aren’t just going to have at least one side always having their hands over their ears as they try to shout over whatever the other side says instead of having an honest discussion.

  169. Shiningone says

    @ RationalismRules
    #183

    One is THEIR choice. The other is MY opinion.

    #180

    “You attempted to equate carrying an unwanted pregnancy to full term with recuperating from bodily damage resulting from physical violence. Equating those two cases requires that you equate all of the case, not just the bits that serve your argument. If we regard the two cases as equivalent, then the unwanted physical material that has been introduced into the woman’s body is equivalent for the purposes of the comparison. To argue that the two cases should be treated differently is to refute your own attempt at equivalence.”
    It was YOU who tried to equate being shot as the same being pregnant. Suggesting that we have to keep the bullet in until the body pushes it out. Which is absurd. My original point was intended to point to recouperation time. If we break an arm for instance, we have to allow the arm time to heal. We don’t chop the arm off because it’s broken for a while. In the same way, if a woman gets pregnant, she should ( my opinion only. Not to force her by law ) take the time to allow that yet to be born human being to be born.

    “A potential human being is not the same thing as an actual human being.”
    That is my point, it SHOULD be treated as such.

    “A lump of coal has the potential to become a diamond, given the right circumstances – that does not mean that a lump of coal is the same as a diamond.”
    A lump of coal is a thing by it’s self. It exists already. A potential human being is NOT. A male and a female had to have intercourse to create it.

    “The fertilized egg also has the potential to simply become waste material, as Sky Captain pointed out to you in post #48. You failed to understand his point, and of course blamed your failure on him, calling his point ‘incoherent’. There was nothing incoherent about his point: I had no trouble understanding it.”
    That was my mistake to say it was incoherent. It’s tough sometimes having a debate with several people at once. Sky Captain was suggesting that most people do NOT expect a baby when they get pregnant. Which is blatantly untrue. His reasoning was that the most common complication in pregnancy is miscarriage. ( This is where I probably got the incoherency thought from) I explained to him that miscarriage is the most common COMPLICATION. NOT the most common outcome of pregnancy.

    “By arguing that a potential human being is in itself a human being, and by arguing that it is irrelevant at what point we nominate it ‘a person’, you have just invalidated your own arbitrary point of division ie. conception. Every unfertilized egg and every individual spermatozoa also have the potential, given the right circumstances, to turn into a human being. So each and every one of them, by your ‘logic’, should be accorded the rights of a human being.”
    A am not saying a potential human being is in itself a human being. One is a fertilised egg, the other is a fully formed human being. By saying it is irrelevant what we call it at the different stages, is to say it does not matter, it is a PROCESS ( a natural one that goes on without are help ). By labelling it at different stages and suggesting that is ALL it is, is to deny it as a process.
    No, an unfertilized egg should not be accorded the rights of a human being. That is an argument from absurdity. In no way could you infer that from my “logic”.

    (You really should stop pontificating about logic and reason until you actually get a better grasp of it.)

  170. Shiningone says

    @ Jared
    #176

    “Shiningone, you have not addressed what I said. Do you recognize the distinction between ‘human’ and ‘person’? If not, vital elements of the situation are being lost in your model of reality. Unless, of course, you actually valued human cells in and of themselves, independent of whether they are generating a mind. You seem to think there is something like a vital spirit of ‘personhood’ that an embryo simply ‘has’, rather than that an embryo has the possibility to go on to generate a person in the future.”

    I have not addressed your statement about the distinction between ‘human’ and ‘person” because I did not consider it pertinent to my point. I stress, my POINT. This is NOT “my model of reality” Which a lot of you seem to be assuming. A lot of you also seem to be assuming that I am an theist. For some reason you have got it into your heads that anyone who is against abortion must necessarily be a theist. I am aware of that generalisation, I make other generalisations about theist from time to time myself. Even AFTER I told everyone here, back in #42 that I am not a theist I had replies from, lets say, a few of your “rough diamond” members who were vehement in their character assassination of me as being one.
    Even YOU, now, are implying that I am one, by insinuating I believe in some “vital spirit”.
    My point is a simply one. We do not need to drag in every single tangent that could possible be involved or not involved.
    We KNOW as a human species, that when a women is pregnant she gives birth to another human being. That is a FACT. Bringing in, cases of complications, arguing over labels, splitting infinitives, ( not sure I used that right ) implying feelings are more important than facts, does NOT change this fact.
    That woman has HER choice. She either lets nature take it’s course ( MY OPINION ) or she decides to end it. Yes! KILL IT.
    kill: cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). note; LIVING THING. It is ALIVE. It may not be able to stay alive on it’s OWN, but it is still alive. Just as is someone hooked up to a machine keeping them ALIVE. The reason we keep people hooked up to a machine is because of the chance they will at some point be able to stay alive by them selves.

    I think I’ve said enough on this subject. I have pretty much explained my opinion from various angles. You can either agree or not. I am not here to take over this blog, nor am I on a “mission from god”.
    Jared, I appreciate #185.

  171. Shiningone says

    I’ll correct that last comment, because I just realised it’s proper context. NO Jared, I am not afraid to admit when I’m wrong. Indeed I have, in a couple of places already.
    I am NOT here just to prove I AM RIGHT. I made my point of view and I stick with it until I get better information. Whether or not you or somebody else agrees or disagrees is not my concern. I will defend my position however, and just because it appears I am out numbered in counter arguments does not automatically make those counter arguments correct or credible. I do NOT need your “charitable” contribution of my defence. It reeks of self importance and arrogance ( just like theists ). I am quiet capable of defending myself.

  172. Shiningone says

    Also do not equate my laziness of spelling correctly with my education or my ability to comprehend. As far as I can see, this blog does not have an edit option. Anyone of decent intellect can see what I mean anyway.
    Just pointing this out, for the petty ones here, of which there seems to be many.

  173. says

    Shiningone, I have not been considering you as a theist. And though a person can be an atheist but believe there are things like ‘souls’, I did not think you had a specific belief in some sort of souls, but I saw that your arguments seemed to imply something some equivalent ‘essence’. What I am doing is trying to figure out what it is that you actually value, in order to be able to productively have a discussion. In regards to models of reality, everyone is modeling reality, and knowing whether or not you understand the distinction between a ‘human’ and a ‘person’, and thus can consider them separately in your model, helps other people figure out what disconnects exist between their models and yours.
     
    You not considering that distinction relevant suggests that you don’t see the distinction, and would also explain the seeming belief in an ‘essence’ of personhood, since any human would be a person in that model, whether or not they had a mind with desires. You wouldn’t be able to consider or value them separately. Similarly, not considering a distinction between belief in some form of ‘god’ and belief in some form of ‘spirit’ would also explain you conflating belief in souls with theism. It’s understandable why people would conflate the two, as the two are strongly correlated, but they are also separate things and should be recognized as such.
     
    No one here is disputing that when a human gives birth, it is to a human. Nor are they disputing that an abortion kills something that otherwise would likely have developed into a person. As far as I can tell, everyone is in agreement on this, and can correct me if they think otherwise. I agree that some of the tangents are not particularly relevant to your central point, but those sorts of side issues always end up coming up in discussions as people try to figure out what your beliefs and values are, though those issues can overwhelm the flow of the discussion away from the actual points of contention.
     
    You’ve stated that you do not feel obligated to ensure the creation of people who could potentially exist in general, and you’ve stated that you do not believe in souls entering a fertilized egg. I think it’s highly unlikely that you hold some specific value for something like people giving birth in itself without a care for things like whether the baby is stillborn or not. So my question is: do you see a distinction between a ‘person’ and a ‘human’, and understand why that is important to other people? I think this is the real disconnect here.

  174. Shiningone says

    @ Jared
    #191
    I HAVE stated I do not want to over take the blog here, which it feels like I’m doing having to respond over and over. Let me make that clear. Your members are pulling me back into the debate by request.

    “You’ve stated that you do not feel obligated to ensure the creation of people who could potentially exist in general, and you’ve stated that you do not believe in souls entering a fertilized egg. I think it’s highly unlikely that you hold some specific value for something like people giving birth in itself without a care for things like whether the baby is stillborn or not. So my question is: do you see a distinction between a ‘person’ and a ‘human’, and understand why that is important to other people? I think this is the real disconnect here.”
    You seem very comfortable putting words and statements into my mouth that I have NOT made. That alone is reason enough for me to stop responding to you.
    That being said, NO WHERE, have I said I do not feel obligated to ensure the creation of people who could potentially exist. I said I do not care if you or anyone else agrees or disagrees with my position ( meaning, in this forum ). At the same time to answer that assertion, I do not need to ensure the creation of people, NATURE does that by it’s self. It is OTHER people who STOP that process. I expressed my opinion on that matter, that is all.
    AGAIN! NO WHERE have I stated that I do not believe in souls entering a fertilized egg. There is only one time I mentioned anything to do with this and I said, “Even YOU, now, are implying that I am one, by insinuating I believe in some “vital spirit”.”
    No where in that statement is a denial of “souls entering a fertilized egg”. As often comes up in atheist vs theist arguments, a theist will accuse the the atheist of believing there IS NO GOD, merely because he stated he does not believe the evidence put forward FOR the belief in a god. It is the guilty, not guilty, verses innocent argument.
    You Jared, continue to be DISHONEST in your arguments.
    I VALUE, the yet to be born human being because I VALUE all life, and the “universe funny boat” it came in.
    Human: a human being. Person: a human being regarded as an individual. NO, I do not see much of a distinction there in relation to the process of creation of a human being. Individual identity is something we develop after birth.

    I did notice something today, that may or may not interest you all.
    New York lawmakers, yesterday, passed a bill ( active immediately) that allows for the termination of pregnancy at 24 weeks. This is of course, when the baby is “viable” as you all like to point out.
    This is just another example of the slippery slope that this kind of dehumanising thinking can lead us to.
    https://buffalonews.com/2019/01/22/long-stalled-abortion-bill-passes-new-york-legislature/

  175. says

    Jim from CA said “Whatever caused time would be prior to time itself.” But there is no reason to think that there was anything before time. Just as there is nothing North of the North Pole, so there was nothing before time. Time just started, I don’t know how or why, but there was nothing prior to time that caused time, because there was absolutely nothing prior to time.

  176. Shiningone says

    Another thing that just occurred to me. The pro abortionists here like to temper their inhumanity somewhat by saying, only abort a fetus that is not “viable” in other words a fetus that is not able to survive on its own.
    In case you have not noticed, a fully developed child ALREADY born is NOT able to survive on it’s own.

  177. paxoll says

    Shiningone, ever point you have tried to use has been rebuffed repeatedly by multiple people. Your reasoning is completely flawed, and not acknowledging it is typical of theists. The rights of the woman to have bodily autonomy is not influenced at all by any quality of the person doing it. The only time someone loses bodily autonomy is when they are committing a crime. Either you think sex or being pregnant should be a crime, or you don’t think women should have the same rights as everyone else and should be a slave for 9 months. Those are the only logical conclusions for forcing a woman to remain pregnant. Both are very typical theistic views, sex is immoral, and women are slaves/subservient.

    Just as is someone hooked up to a machine keeping them ALIVE. The reason we keep people hooked up to a machine is because of the chance they will at some point be able to stay alive by them selves.

    See, this is completely irrelevant to the abortion question because it is not a machine they are connected to, but a person with rights to choose. I already presented this as an accurate analogy in WAY back in post #28

    You and the other person are taken to the hospital and the other persons kidneys don’t work but you are a blood match. Can they force you to remain connected to this other person to keep them alive? Can we force people to donate blood to save someone elses life?

     
    We have a term called a moral virtue. Where doing something is virtuous according to our morals, but not doing it is not immoral. Is it wrong for an adult to NOT jump into a lake to save a child who is drowning? We can’t know all the factors involved. We often see people drown trying to save someone else, and we admire them for the virtuous attempt while lamenting them for being stupid. We do not force people to donate blood, or kidneys, or bone marrow, because if we violate peoples bodily autonomy we have no logical justification to protect peoples bodily autonomy (including killing people). But people who do donate are held up as being morally virtuous. Abortions are the termination of a pregnancy. Something women not only have a right to, but logically and morally SHOULD have the right to. The death of the unborn child is an unwanted side effect, often EVEN for the woman having the abortion. Carrying a child to term is morally virtuous, not doing so is not morally wrong.

  178. buddyward says

    @Shiningone

    Another thing that just occurred to me. The pro abortionists here like to temper their inhumanity somewhat by saying, only abort a fetus that is not “viable” in other words a fetus that is not able to survive on its own.
    In case you have not noticed, a fully developed child ALREADY born is NOT able to survive on it’s own.

    I do not think that is the definitions that pro-choice people have of “viable”. It might be a good idea to ask and agree on the terms before arguing against it else you might be called out for a strawman fallacy.

  179. Shiningone says

    @ buddyward
    #195

    Your right of course. I just got frustrated with the amount of stupid people in this blog. I have watched TAE since it started and I guess I had the impression that their official blog would have similar people populating it. i.e. logical, rational, reasonable. Instead I’ve been bombarded with irrational, self-centred, ego maniacs.

  180. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shenanigans “The pro abortionists here”

    There you go again employing typical theistics machinations misrepresenting things with loaded words to obfuscate and bias things.

    No one here is “pro abortion”… we are pro the rights of a woman to have control over her body and to have the right to choose what is good for herself without self-righteous patronising charlatans imposing on them their benighted unscientific immoral pretenses of morality.

    Your shenanigans are detestable.

  181. Shiningone says

    I guess, as always, the most sincerer, reasonable, intelligent ones remain the most quiet, until they have had the opportunity to study the newcomer.

  182. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shenanigans “temper their inhumanity somewhat by saying, only abort a fetus that is not “viable” in other words a fetus that is not able to survive on its own…In case you have not noticed, a fully developed child ALREADY born is NOT able to survive on it’s own.”

    Yet more theistic equivocation ruses…. not viable is NOT the same thing as survive on its own. Any person who knows how to look up words in a dictionary will realize the extent of your casuistry.

    When a fetus is removed from the host body upon which it was feeding and of which it modified the biological functions, no matter the mechanisms or the interference of other humans to keep it functioning, they will fail…. i.e. it is NO viable.

    A baby cannot survive on its own because it needs the help of other people and if it gets that help it can survive and flourish and continue to function…. i.e. it IS viable.

    So as you can see your sleight of tongue and equivocations are further indication of your theistic machinations and casuistry.

  183. buddyward says

    @Shiningone

    Your right of course. I just got frustrated with the amount of stupid people in this blog. I have watched TAE since it started and I guess I had the impression that their official blog would have similar people populating it. i.e. logical, rational, reasonable. Instead I’ve been bombarded with irrational, self-centred, ego maniacs.

    Sometimes it is in how people communicate that gives off that sense of agression. You cannot control what they say but you can control what you say. I am a believer in Street Epistemology and find it very useful specially if your aim is to find another person’s perspective as opposed to try convincing them of yours. It is not a very comfortable feeling to have your beliefs challenged so it might be a good idea to have that mentality when you are challenging the belief of others.

  184. Ronald Kyle says

    Shenanigans says: I guess, as always, the most sincerer, reasonable, intelligent ones remain the most quiet, until they have had the opportunity to study the newcomer.

    🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
     

    Yet more theistic machinations… so the only intelligent people are the ones who have not yet written to oppose your heinous ruses of utilizing emotionally loaded terms to equivocate and to shame and guilt women into conforming to your immoral pretenses of morality…. clever attempt but no cigar my dear chump!!!
     

    to study the newcomer

    You might be a new comer yourself…. but your shenanigans are hackneyed and trite apologetics that do not need any studying since they were spewed time and again by much more skilled casuists than you have so far proven to be.
     

    There is no need to study your machinations… they have already been long ago studied and rebuffed and disproven for the benighted despotic misogynistic religious piffle that they are … your insistence on using such flimflam only indicates your theistic nature despite your dissimulations to the contrary.
     
    The irony is that even your religious fairy tales oppose your feigned concern for life, since the celestial slave monger of those fairy tales is the furthest thing from caring about life… but he does support your misogyny and use of fear to coerce and inveigle and manipulate.

  185. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    We KNOW as a human species, that when a women is pregnant she gives birth to another human being.

    Again, the correct phrasing would be “we know that when a woman gets pregnant, in less than half of such cases, (ignoring induced abortion), the woman will give birth to another human being”. If you want to be really complete, you could also say that in some small percentage of cases, she’ll give birth to two identical twins from a single fertilized egg, and in a smaller percentage of cases, she’ll give birth to one person that is a fusion of two fertilized eggs e.g. a human chimera.

    And you still have not addressed my other argument (“no brain -> no mind -> no intrinsic moral value”) in the slightest. I’m still waiting.

  186. t90bb says

    dont lose sight of the fact that moneyshines opening salvo was to call this matts blog, warn him that he was here to point out his foibles, insinuate the reason that the hosts dont regularly participate here is because their egos have gotten too large……

    and he is the height of decorum and rationality lololololo…..

    another goof

    ps. i am not the best speller ether….lol, sorry you took it two hart. ha

  187. ironchops says

    Hi EL,
    So you are saying if there is a brain there is a mind and there is intrinsic moral value? Is this true of only sentient beings/animals? Which of the recognized definitions are you referring to? 1A or 2A of the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary? Are we born with morals? Are our innate morals all the same? If so why do we have so many problems?

    I see morals as a subjective social construct and nothing more, but we could write them down, swear an oath (sign a contract) to collectively abide by the agreed upon morals/rules/ethics.

  188. says

    Shiningone, I don’t think that the people posting here are going to be upset that you are responding to posts directed towards you, so long as the responses move the conversation along and show you are interacting honestly.
     
    I specifically asked you in post 50 if you felt an obligation to bring as many people as can be supported who do not currently exist, but could possbily exist, into existence. Your response in post 53 was to say a human starts to exist at conception, that not every possible person will want to exist, and that, “No. Everyone should NOT be having as many as possible.”, which is not an answer I would expect from someone who feels an obligation to create people who could potentially exist. I see that response and I think it’s highly likely that the person who posted it wants to communicate that they don’t feel a general obligation to ensure the creation of people who could potentially exist.
     
    To clarify, whenever I was referring to obligation to bring people into existence, I meant it in a truly general sense, which is why I included the examples of AIs and uplifted animals, as well as trying to get pregnant. I did not mean an obligation to just allow a pregnancy to proceed without opposition. If I have been understanding you correctly, you do not feel an obligation to do try to create as many minds as you can, but do feel an obligation to either help a zygote continue developing or at least not hinder it. If that is not your position, please clarify it, because I have been tailoring my responses around that understanding.
     
    In the context of the discussion, I think virtually anyone who read, “Even YOU, now, are implying that I am one, by insinuating I believe in some “vital spirit”.”, would take that to mean that either you thought of spirits as only being included with theism, or thought that I thought that, as well as you denying that you believe in some sort of soul attaching itself as soon as conception occurred.
     
    If you do believe a soul attaches itself to a zygote, but wanted to specify you didn’t have a belief in gods, why didn’t you simply say that you believe in a soul, but not in a god? I did not think a belief in souls necessitated a god, and did make sure to clarify this in post 191. And if you don’t believe that a soul attaches itself to a zygote, why the objection to me correctly inferring your position from your previous objection? Even after both those objections, you’ve yet to clarify what your position in that regard actually is.
     
    My current understanding is that you don’t believe in any sort of spirit/soul/whatever, and that since you don’t believe that, it’s not really relevant for your central issue. If that’s incorrect, let me know. But it’s not dishonesty to infer your positions based on more than explicit declarations of each and every element of what you believe, which would make for an extremely cumbersome discussion. I may infer something incorrect, and if so, would appreciate having that pointed out so that I can address your actual positions, rather than continue to waste time tailoring my responses to a misunderstanding of your position.
     
    And, all the rest of that addressed, we get to the heart of the issue. If you don’t understand the distinction between ‘human’ and ‘person’, then you will not be able to understand positions based on that distinction. Simply put, what myself, and at least some of the other people who have posted here, such as RationalismRules and ElightenmentLiberal actually value are ‘people’. In my second post, I gave a clarification of what I meant by ‘person’. In this context, when we say ‘person’, we basically mean an intelligent self-aware agent who values certain states of the universe in favor of other states. They can correct me if I have incorrectly inferred their positions, as well.
     
    Up until the point that you actually have a mind like that, there is no ‘person’. A rock does not have desires. A zygote does not have a mind with desires either, even though the zygote has DNA that codes for a human, and could be classified as ‘human’, it is not a person in the sense we are using the term. Nor is a human with anencephaly a person. If someone were to have a stroke that destroyed the parts of the brain that created their mind, then the person has died, and you have a mindless, non-person human.
     
    Without a mind there is nothing that can have experiences, nothing that can value things and have desires. Those minds are what I value. When I interact with people, I am interacting with a mind that has their own desires and wants to interact as well. When I give a gift, I give something that I hope the person will enjoy. When I tell people about a game I thought was fun, or a show that I thought was good, I want others to be able to have experiences that they found positive. This is because I value other people and want them to have their values fulfilled.
     
    I would not be doing this if they had no minds. I would be doing it if there was a mind that wasn’t in a human body, however. An uploaded mind running on a computer that came from a human would still be valuable to me and worth protecting and sharing life with. An alien that came to Earth from another star system, if we had values compatible enough to positively interact would also be something I valued. If there were ‘souls’, and they could interact with us, they would also be something I valued, even if the body they had been controlling had died, so they were no longer ‘alive’ in that sense. Even those minds that I can never interact with or even know about, I still consider to have value, though there is nothing I can do for them.
     
    A zygote I see as being useful because it can some day lead to a mind, but I do not value it like I value minds. I value stars, not because I just like massive fusion reactions, but because they contribute to the production of minds, and because minds can appreciate them for that and other reasons. In each instance, what I am interested in is the mind, not that something has DNA coding for a human. That is simply a useful correlation to what I actually value, and our current way of producing more.
     
    And that’s where abortion comes into the picture. You have an actual person, with a mind, who has desires for their body and their future. And if they are pregnant, there is something in them that they could allow to develop into a human, but that does not have a mind and so cannot have desires or experiences. If it continued to develop, eventually it would probably produce a mind, and that mind would have value to me. Some people want to produce a new mind to interact with and raise, and they let their pregnancy progress in order for them to fulfill that desire. Others do not want to do so, and if they get pregnant, they wish to abort the pregnancy.
     
    The developing human has no desires either way at this point, because it has no mind. There is nothing that exists that feels sadness that it won’t be born. There is no conflict of interest between a mother and a developing baby without a brain yet, because it doesn’t have interests any more than a rock or a bacterium does. All the discussion about potential is noted, but does not change the fact that until a mind forms, there is no one there, other than the mother, who does have interests.
     
    Does that at all help understand where we’re coming from?

  189. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To ironchops
    Obviously, I’m being short in my arguments, and I’m also trying to appeal to some of the values that this other person probably already holds. It’s a tactic to be an effective communicator and effective persuader.

    In particular, I’m using the phrase “intrinsic moral value” as a Christian might. I mean nothing more and nothing less than the assertion that we should design our society to improve the lives of everyone in it, ala the standard utilitarian analysis, further clarified by John Rawls’s Veil Of Ignorance standard.

    I understand where you’re coming from with those implicit arguments and explicit questions. In short, I reject some of your philosophical underpinning of the entire discussion. Morality is not a thing that exists like the couch that I’m sitting on exists. If someone says that “morality exists”, I would have to ask them to clarify what they mean. I think the whole “subjective vs objective” difference is based on false, and often nonsensical, metaphysics.

    The short of my position is that I make the moral assertion that I made above, and I will use persuasion to try to bring others to my side, and I’ll even use violence, and more often by proxy than directly i.e. police, in order to enforce this value of “making the world into a better place for everyone” onto other people. If someone disagrees, then I’ll try to use persuasion, and depending on the circumstances I might even resort to violence (again, typically violence by proxy via the police). If there’s another culture that disagrees, my position “I’m right and they’re wrong” still stands, although using violence to achieve my ends becomes much more problematic and therefore I’m far less likely to use violence to achieve my ends in this sort of situation.

    I am not a moral relativist in the sense “I think my culture’s morality is just as good as another culture’s morality, and I shouldn’t try to enforce my moral values onto another culture, and I shouldn’t judge another culture according to my own morality”.

    I do not believe in absolute or objective morality, because I’m not even sure what those words mean. Often people who use such language have a nonsensical and incoherent Platonist metaphysics.

  190. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @RationalismRules #180:

    The fertilized egg also has the potential to simply become waste material, as Sky Captain pointed out to you in post #48. You failed to understand his point, and of course blamed your failure on him […] I had no trouble understanding it.

    QFT
     
    Shiningone #186:

    Sky Captain was suggesting that most people do NOT expect a baby when they get pregnant.

    *sigh*
     
    #48, #57

  191. says

    “Ugh, I’m not a fan of Tracie’s approach to Kalam.”
    Amen to that. Arguing Kalam for the 150th time would be so much more listenable, interesting and productive than “it’s not falsifiable — call a physicist!” for 30 GD minutes! Yuck! Let the caller finish a sentence once in a while, please!

  192. buddyward says

    @Rick Witten

    Amen to that. Arguing Kalam for the 150th time would be so much more listenable, interesting and productive than “it’s not falsifiable — call a physicist!” for 30 GD minutes! Yuck! Let the caller finish a sentence once in a while, please!

    The caller did say that he just wants to repeat what have already been discussed and have nothing new to add.

  193. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    Rick Witten says January 23, 2019 at 5:36 pm
    .
    ““Ugh, I’m not a fan of Tracie’s approach to Kalam.”
    Amen to that. Arguing Kalam for the 150th time would be so much more listenable, interesting and productive than “it’s not falsifiable — call a physicist!” for 30 GD minutes! Yuck! Let the caller finish a sentence once in a while, please!”
    .
    Agreed.
    .

  194. t90bb says

    Can you guys stop crying about the host?

    Kalam is not a legit argument for a god. It argues for a cause. Could that cause be a magic genie?? perhaps. Could it be a yet to be discovered natural cause?? yep. Game over thanks for playing.

  195. Honey Tone says

    @ buddyward #210
    re the Kalam arguement:

    The caller did say that he just wants to repeat what have already been discussed and have nothing new to add.

    Thank you so much for pointing this out. Listener comprehension is important, folks.

    The hosts are not required to steelman a caller’s argument, especially one whose flaws have been on display for, what, 500 years? A thousand?

    Good job on the hosts paying attention to the caller’s words.

  196. Ronald Kyle says

    @t90bb

    Kalam is not a legit argument for a god. It argues for a cause

    And it fails even at that argument too. And it has been debunked centuries ago even without the benefits of all modern knowledge, and it has been debunked repeatedly in numerous ways ever since.
     

    In fact it fails right from the first premise… “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”… no… that is just a stupid assumption no matter how much mental gymnastics idiots with religion “PhDs” go through …. therefore QED!!!…. the whole argument is null and void.
     

    So the entire argument is fallacious from the get go.
     

    To compound the failure even more, the second premise is also a fallacy…”The universe began to exist”… no it did not…. moreover there is no way any one using this claptrap could know or verify that ===> unfalsifiable assumption…. i.e. fallacious poppycock!!!
     

    Some charlatans with religious “PhDs” equivocate our regional suburb of the universe with the universe and think that the big bang is proof that the universe began… this is just a convenient equivocation to pull the wool over limited minds.
     

    Theistic so called “experts” have gone from arguing and burning people alive for disagreeing that the solar system is the universe, to the earth is the center of the galaxy, to the galaxy is the universe, and now they think our clusters of galaxies are the universe… and they cannot see they tragedy of their progressive failures.
     

    Furthermore, the tragic thing about almost all arguments by theists, is that their premises are fallacious so their arguments fail at the premises stage. But EVEN IF we let them have the fallacious premises for argument’s sake, they STILL FAIL AGAIN….a double level of failure.
     

    Even if we let them have the failed premises just to see where they would go with them… they turn around and fail on the conclusions too.
     

    So even if we let them have the two failed premises their conclusion still does not prove a god… even if the universe had a cause, the cause could be a gazillion things… here are just a few
    ⬛ a star going nova in another universe (big bang)
    a teenager in another universe masturbating ejaculated this one (big bang)
    ⬛ a mad scientist who just blew herself up while tinkering with stuff (big bang)
    ⬛ an evil sadist who likes to hear screetches of agony and to watch contortions of pain on a mass scale commissioned this terrarium.
    ⬛ a TV producer created this universe as a prop for a “reality show”
    ⬛ a common place toy for children in another universe just like we have toy soldiers for children in our universe.
     

    Moreover, EVEN IF yet again we let them have their failed conclusion just for argument’s sake, they STILL FAIL AGAIN, because they still have to pull out more crap from their malodorous crevices to argue that this god is their celestial slave monger and ethnic cleanser and/or his ill begotten son.
     

    Even if this “god” they fallaciously and failingly argued for is a god…. how can they then argue that this god is theirs and not one of thousands of gods or just a servant god working for higher gods or even THE DEVIL or A devil.
     

    So the Kalam fallacy is nothing more than layers upon layers of illogic and imbecilic wishful thinking!!!

  197. ironchops says

    Hi EL,
    I wasn’t trying to get to deep in this. I was trying to figure your angle and you answered sufficiently for my curiosity. Thanks for the response.

  198. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    Shiningone says January 24, 2019 at 4:28 am
    .
    “Now I know why Matt does not come on here. He would of hung up on you fucking idiots.”
    .
    Did I treat you bad?
    .
    .

  199. iquilt6 says

    I am in complete agreement with bodily autonomy and (realizing that this may be quite unpopular and would likely not happen at any time in the future) I personally think that no man should be able to vote on abortion rights. If a male doesn’t wish to take the chance of impregnating a female, it is up to him to prevent such from happening. A woman’s body is her own and no man should be able to tell her what to do or not do with it. If men could get pregnant and have babies, abortion would have been a non-issue a long time ago. Just my opinion.

  200. says

    Is it possible to switch to a threaded blog service? There is no way to directly “reply” to a comment, so the whole dang page has to be searched to track conversations. When it gets up to 200+ posts is not worth the effort.

  201. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ t90bb 212 and Honey Tone 213:

    To be clear, I love Tracie’s approach to most issues. I just don’t like the “consult the experts” stuff when most of these apologetics have much more straightforward responses. Regarding Kalam: premise 1 hasn’t been demonstrated because you haven’t demonstrated that it’s *impossible* for things to begin to exist without a cause, which is what the argument says. And even if the argument was valid and sound, which it isn’t, how does “the universe had a cause” get to a god? It doesn’t. Done. No need to defer to physicists.

    This came up too in a discussion about the reliability of the Gospels as accurate historical records. Tracie basically told a caller to go consult historians, when the straightforward question to ask is “okay, you have some ancient documents making fantastical claims about resurrections and such – why should we think that these particular stories, out of all of the thousands of wild supernatural stories that people have believed in history, are true?” No historians needed. And I’m saying this as someone with a PhD in History.

    And again, Tracie is, on the whole, awesome!

  202. t90bb says

    215….Monkeyshines….

    dont let to door hit you in the ass on your way out. time to fumigate…

    what happened to Brojo, EF, DD, Gary Milne and the rest of the dudes that circle jerk on that server.???

  203. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Is it possible to switch to a threaded blog service? There is no way to directly “reply” to a comment, so the whole dang page has to be searched to track conversations. When it gets up to 200+ posts is not worth the effort.

    Long ago, we had nested comments, but with a max nesiting depth of like 5. I far prefer the current to that. I was part of community at the time asking the change to this. If we had something like Reddit unlimited nesting, that could be fine, but with the old approach, you didn’t get significant benefits imho, and you had significant penalties because the nesting causes you to lose the left half of the page for text and it becomes harder to read.

    I don’t think it’s that hard to read now. Meh.

  204. Ian Butler says

    The solution isn’t nesting comments so much as judicious use of the bandwidth of this single thread.

    I’ve noticed for the last month or so a changing gaggle of people relentlessly posting the same thing over and over, which does create a lot of chaff, and makes it tough to have an actual conversation.

    Here’s a handy rule of thumb, ask yourself if the forum would be productive if everyone behaved similarly to you. If it would be bogged down in an endless slog of minutae or devolve into a shouting match you should probably post less or be nicer about it.

    Coincidentally, the same principal applies in the real world!

  205. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Regarding what Ian said:
    ~EL looks sheepishly at the ground, with an air of guiltiness about him~

  206. Lamont Cranston says

    Wiggle Puppy says in #220

    To be clear, I love Tracie’s approach to most issues. I just don’t like the “consult the experts” stuff when most of these apologetics have much more straightforward responses.

    I completely agree. If “truth” was always about the “consensus of experts” we would still be believing that the sun circles the earth, that the earth is flat, and that gods rule our lives.

    Instead, the evidence should be presented, the premises should be evaluated and the “truth” of a claim should stand or fall based on its merit rather than its popularity.

    I realize not everyone is necessarily in the best position to critically evaluate some claims, but Kalam is easy as you have stated. Even if someone accepted each premise, nothing about the existence of a god is the logical conclusion. Kalam does nothing to prove that a god exist (wide range of definitions), what kind of god exists (sentient or not, malevolent or benevolent, personal or impersonal), or which god exists with thousands to choose from.

    If someone fully accepted each premise of Kalam your conclusion is that something caused the universe to exist. What? Unknown. You wind up at the same place as cosmologists end up. No definitive answer. So far everything past the answer of “unknown” is unproven and perhaps not provable speculation.

    Lamont Cranston

  207. Ian Butler says

    EL, sometimes a commenter such as yourself needs to nail down another that is being evasive, in those cases it’s more the evasive one that’s wasting our time. I do appreciate the effort, but there is a point when it becomes an exercise in futility and just gives the other person more opportunities to be obtuse.

    Unfortunately the worst offenders are rarely self aware enough to take constructive criticism, and the trolls just feed off of it.

  208. Ian Butler says

    Let’s break the Kalam down:

    “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”

    We don’t know that to be true, in fact at the quantum level it appears to not be true.

    “The universe began to exist”

    We don’t know that to be true either. What we think of as a beginning may merely be a phase change, perhaps the prior universe collapsed in on itself and was reborn in it’s present form, or a near infinite number of other possibilities.

    “Therefore:
    The universe has a cause”

    Once again, we don’t know that everything that begins to exist has a cause, nor do we know the universe began to exist, so we don’t know if the universe had a cause. But if it did, we don’t have any clue what it might be.

    If we were to speculate what that cause might be, we should probably look at things known to exist, rather than a particular pre-science God, since the best evidence we have of a God is apparently this stupid Kalam.

  209. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Ian
    Yep, yep, and yep.
    I think you missed one important step. “Even if I grant all of your premises, how did you conclude that it’s Yahweh, or Allah, etc., instead of the interventionist god of the humanoid aliens of Rigel 7?”.

  210. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ EL 229:

    Or a non-interventionist god that ceased to exist at the moment of the universe’s creation

    Or a non-sentient superbeing that simply creates universes as a by-product of its bodily processes

    Or a malevolent god that gave us the ability to feel pain because it enjoys watching things suffer

    Kalam is designed to exploit believers’ preconceived biases – if you watch William Lane Craig present it in debates, it’s accompanied by a cavalcade of assumptions: “Okay, now we know that the universe had a cause, so what kind of cause could have done it? Well, the universe began to exist at some finite point in the past, so it sure seems like some being made a conscious choice to create the universe. And what do you know, that sure sounds like the god described in Genesis…”

    This is why Kalam is catnip to believers, and has virtually no effect on nonbelievers. I would have liked to hear more from the caller about how he became a believer because of Kalam, because I would suspect there’s a little bit of fudging of the data in there.

  211. paxoll says

    Think yall are missing the whole purpose of the conversation. A believer came with a canned apologetic. As a non-expert, is saying I don’t accept your premises going to make the caller think they are wrong? There belief is not based on any epistemological logical argument, it is based on intuition and limited understanding. It didn’t matter what Tracie said the person would not abandon this argument here or in their own social life, and they are going to be going around spreading this fallacious argument to other even LESS educated people who will also parrot it. By insisting that if he really cares about the truth of the argument he should speak with an expert in the field, he will have little ability to dismiss their criticism without severe intellectual dishonesty, while it is likely to not change his actual belief, it is much more likely to stop him from spreading the fallacious argument.

  212. Shiningone says

    There was no beginning. The universe is eternal as well as infinite in size. It is a dynamic, static, cellular universe. The action of the cellular structure is analogous to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93B%C3%A9nard_convection ( click on small video to see ) except in 3 dimensions. The apparent increase in the local rate of expansion is due to the extreme mass at the edges. This is my opinion. Conrad Ranzan has the same opinion except he is better educated in this field. He is also considered a fringe scientist by “the main stream”. However, so were other great scientists back in the day.
    http://www.cellularuniverse.org/S3DynamicCosmicCell.htm

    No need for a creator, no need for something out of nothing.

  213. Shiningone says

    I originally came here in the hope that we could discuss the show with the presenters. Seeing as they call it their “official blog”. t90bb seems to think it is HIS blog. His first response was to name call and insult. A trend he carried on time after time. These type of sub-humans don’t bother me, I learnt to ignore them many years ago. What does bother me, is ALL OF YOU allow it.
    The internet is in my opinion one of the greatest inventions by man, ever. Nothing has EVER allowed so many to learn about the world and educate themselves in such a diverse field, and so simply.
    Religion, is the number one detriment to that education. Seeing as there are so MANY religious believers in the world, it is rare to have a gathering of like minded people to combat that irrational way of thinking. You have one here. Yet you waste it by allowing it to turn into a petty slinging match, of which you can find any number of from the likes of the “youtubers”. None of you speak out about it. Shame on you.

  214. Wiggle Puppy says

    @ paxoll 231:

    I take your point, but as the hosts have said many times over the years, they’re generally not under the impression that they’re going to have a trenchant and immediate impact on the callers themselves. Rather, their target audience consists of the “on-the-fence” people who are watching, people that perhaps grew up in religion but then started to have doubts, and are exploring what this atheism thing is all about. I tend to think that if a theist comes on the show with some apologetic argument that perhaps *sounds* reasonable (like Kalam), and then the hosts show why said argument has some problems (like, the argument’s conclusion doesn’t imply what the caller seems to think it does), then that will have a certain impact on the listening audience. If the hosts just tell the caller to go talk to some PhDs, I tend to think that that has less of an impact, because it seems like the atheist doesn’t really have a response to the argument.

  215. says

    In situations like the Kalam call, for just handling the issue of the moment, pointing out that it is a well-known and often-heard argument that is known to be flawed, and is not convincing to those who most study the topic in a scientific way is one good way to start, followed by a list of the specific criticisms of the problems that prevent it from being considered a good argument. This generally isn’t going to result in much rethinking of a position, but it’s helpful over time and with viewers, at least if you’re familiar with the subject enough to address it.
     
    For arguments where you’re not familiar with the subject, and which the arguments are over minute details requiring expertise, directing people to the experts is perfectly reasonable. Of course, anyone bringing up an argument requiring expert understanding of the topic to non-experts in a field had better be willing to give expert explanations and essentially teach someone at least the basics of the field so their arguments can even be understood. Simply pouring forth a fusillade of rapid-fire facts and rattling of citations, or describing a complex process that is hard to follow and not well known is generally not approaching the topic honestly from the beginning, even if you are correct. If you can’t expect someone to understand and check on the accuracy of your arguments, then you can’t expect them to honestly accept the argument, and so using it in that way with that person is not honest.
     
    As far as the honesty, people are generally not approaching discussions honestly, though they lack enough familiarity with a high enough degree of honesty to even recognize the difference between what they are doing and honesty. They’re usually not aware or even concerned about the possibility that there is any weakness in the argument, because the idea of checking to see if what they’re saying holds up under scrutiny hasn’t been seriously considered. They already have a position, and they’re looking for support for it, and so they gather what support they can to advance their position, pick it up from others on their ‘side’, and then go forth with it. And if doesn’t seem to be working, they can try other common things to support their position.
     
    In the past, I have very carefully and doggedly gone after arguments, and in some cases, gotten people to admit the argument didn’t hold up. At least, when the other side didn’t simply drop out and refuse to continue the conversation, and then instead moved on to address other people with other arguments. In cases where people did admit the argument wasn’t good, I thought I had accomplished something, until at a later point, I observed some of those same people making the same arguments to other people who clearly couldn’t spot the flaws. And when I jumped in and asked them why they were again using the same arguments after I pointed out why they didn’t work, the people quietly withdrew from the discussion, I would hope at least feeling some shame.
     
    What to make of this? Perhaps they didn’t care if the argument was actually true, because they considered it in service of the ‘truth’, even if the argument itself was bad, and so they figured as long as it wasn’t with someone who noticed the flaws, using the argument was for the best. Not an honest position, even if they had at least admitted to the error in the first place. I suppose that they could have thought that they had figured out that my criticism of the argument was actually flawed, but they didn’t go down the road of making that case to me. For the ones that refused to admit flaw in the argument to begin with, who did all they could to dodge the issues raised and instead turned their attention to others, again, that’s not an honest response.
     
    This is something I see people do in general, theist or atheist, the roots of this sort of thing are a lot deeper than religious indoctrination. They have a ‘side’, and they seek to support that ‘side’ however they can. I’ve even seen people on ‘my side’ in a discussion who have basically taken an argument I used, that they apparently considered novel and ‘strong’, and then seen them use it in a later debate with others, only they mangled the argument, and it was clear that they didn’t understand it. They saw me as being articulate and ‘defeating’ the ‘other side’, and took an argument I used, cargo cult style, and wielded it about as well as that sort of thing usually goes.
     
    This rather bothered me, because it was clear that they couldn’t be honestly making an argument that they didn’t understand and were mangling that badly. They had chosen a side and were just taking whatever they could to support it in debates. When I stepped in and corrected the argument, their response was not like, “Oh, I didn’t understand the argument I was making, how embarrassing”, it was like, “Ha, now face the might of my powerful ally”. They thought they were correct, and they thought they were being honest. When I tried to better explain the argument to them, they responded as if I were an instructor correcting their technique on how to use a grappling move, as if the only concern was how well they were applying a weapon to be used on the ‘enemy’.
     
    There is frequently a level of dishonesty that goes through arguments, and I think it’s largely instinctive. I’ve seen friends and family members have a dispute, and then the attempts to gather support begin. Each side goes out and tells their side of the argument, and they carefully omit details that reflect badly on them, or that ameliorate the other side. I’ve had to remind people that I was present for the argument, and I remember what happened, and that while I agree the other side was at fault for the incident that the argument was about, that they can’t leave out how they then intentionally antagonized the other person about something they were sensitive about in response and then claim the other person suddenly blew up “for no reason”, even if I thought the blow up was over the top all things considered.
     
    Or people simply relay straw-man versions of the arguments of the ‘other side’. They leave out critical details of the argument that it doesn’t make sense without, or they change it up just a little to be absurd. This is so common that I’ve learned I basically have to talk to proponents of a position, because the odds of me getting an accurate portrayal of it from critics are so poor. I see this even with positions that are nonsense to begin with, where even then, people felt the need to twist it and make it seem even more ridiculous than it already was for some reason.
     
    I figure that people do this to poison the discussion, perhaps hoping that if they give a twisted version of the ‘enemy’ position, then people will feel they already know it. Then, even if they do see accurate descriptions of it, they’ll just recognize that it looks about the same as the straw version, and gloss over the details of the real position.
     
    You’re not going to be able to really correct that sort of thing over the course of one call, especially not a contentious one. But even when people come around to ‘your side’, there is still that same sort of behavior, and that’s a much more fundamental and difficult thing to correct.

  216. ian butler says

    Well put Jared. Reminds me of a long Facebook discussion I had with my Trump lovin’ brother, where I finally got him to concede his argument was factually incorrect. I felt victorious and vindicated for about a day, until he proceeded to make the very same argument the next day. I think it’s due to human’s compulsion to be loyal to their team/family/party/god/in-group, anything that goes against their side must be discounted by any means necessary, including willful self-deception.

    I love the scientific method’s relentless drive to be proven wrong, and have cultivated an appreciation of a good argument against my position. When it happens I consider it an opportunity to model how to honestly and willingly admit to being incorrect, and change views accordingly. Sometimes that will be pounced on as a sign of weakness, but often, even if it is only a small detail that is conceded, it leads the other side to soften their stance and perhaps actually hear what you are saying. But that really is going against the way we are hard-wired, and takes a lot of effort.

    I consider my atheism one important step in being a rational, appropriately skeptical human being, but it is no guarantee in and of itself, as reading this blog makes clear. Atheists can be just as dogmatic and self righteous as theists, because we are humans, and subject to the same biases as anybody else.

    We love to point out the Dunning-Kruger effect when we see it in others, but in reality, everyone is a non-expert in many areas, and prone to Dunning-Kruger bias in those parts of our lives. To counteract that, we must put more effort into proving our own assumptions wrong than we do in proving others wrong, but let’s face it, that’s not nearly as fun!

  217. t90bb says

    I just like to remind myself how wonderful it is to be an agnostic atheist. Its a great place, to be truly open minded and honest. I lied to myself for many years about what I believed in an effort to please others and try to eliminate the uneasiness of not having answers to important questions. Honestly admitting what the evidence presented actually demonstrates is the key to unlocking a freedom I never knew existed. Fellowshiping with others who are also embrace intellectual honesty helps ease the dis ease of not knowing things! Recognizing that we have each other for love and support is a great feeling.

    If I have not mentioned it lately. I really appreciate you all. I will keep exploring with you even if sometimes the answers we find are uncomfortable.

  218. t90bb says

    233…..Monkeyshines……interesting recollection of events I must say! Your postings regarding me seem to lack and real honesty and consistency. I am sub human and you have “learnt” (?) to ignore me and my type…..and yet you cant seem to stop talking about me. LOL, make up your mind.

    I get you have a high opinion of yourself and you are butthurt there was no parade upon your arrival here. BOO WOO. Sorry you are disappointed but life is full of little disappointments. If you are willing to point out Matts “foibles” and think they are important, do call the show. Like many of us Matt likes to learn.

    Hopefully you can move on eventually. I really do hope you stay and become a regular participant.to “my” blog. ha

  219. says

    Shiningone, while a few of the hosts of the show do sometimes post in here, how much varies considerably. And while the level of hostility in a number of the posts here is often above what I would prefer, you should examine your own posts as well. I don’t think you intend for it to be taken this way, but the frequent use of allcaps to emphasize things comes across as aggressive. And when you post things like, “Logic! see, this is what it is, try using it.”, in response to what RationalismRules posted in 23, and you then turn around and get upset that someone asked you not to be an asshole undermines any attempts you might make for people to reduce hostility, as it comes across as asking people to be nice to you while you abuse them.
     
    I realize that you probably felt RationalismRules to have been attacking you by saying that your argument was the worst they had seen on the subject, but, I don’t know if I can think of any that I’ve seen that would be worse. Hostility does have its uses, though I think it frequently comes up too soon and does hurt the ability of some people to maintain a productive discussion. But anyone other than a moderator trying to police how much hostility is ‘warranted’ also tend to be unproductive. People have different levels of tolerance for hostility, and depending on who is in a group, you’ll see differing norms on what sort of compromise levels are generally deemed ‘acceptable’. People have exceeded those in various posts over the last few weeks, and some people have commented on it when they felt someone went too far.

  220. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    What does bother me, is ALL OF YOU allow it.

    You speak as though I had some power to stop it. I don’t. I’m not a mod. The best I can do is ask them nicely to stop. Someone else already asked them nicely to behave, and their request was rebuffed. Don’t know what you expect me to do about it.

    And you still haven’t addressed at all my challenge “no brain -> no mind -> no intrinsic moral value”.

    To Jared
    Yes. I agree. It’s hard for most people to admit that they’re wrong. They often have a vested interest in the outcome. They have an emotional investment above and beyond what the evidence supports. Sometimes it’s to avoid looking foolish. Sometimes it’s just naked tribalism. Sometimes it’s childhood religious indoctrination. The reasons are varied.

    Skepticism and science at its core is IMO the practice of trying to prove oneself wrong. It adds a certain kind of humility to always be asking in the background “could I be wrong? and how would I learn if I was?”. I try to be one of those rare people that value being right over being made to look like a fool. If I am wrong, I want to know it, and that typically means being able to admit publicly when I’m wrong. That’s a very difficult skill to acquire, and as I said, it also requires a certain kind of humility.

  221. Safudas says

    By drumming loudly (regardless of the intent) at an already heated event is just begging for an escalation.
    Everybody should know that, including the drummer.
    Furthermore, the drummer wasn’t teleported from the 18th century, and there was no language barrier for him to explain his intention.
    Chinese people use firecrackers to ward off evil and bad luck.
    Would it be OK to let off a few at school or in college during a difficult exam?
    One can only judge a situation by what one already knows.
    To accept and learn new facts and points of view is a commendable thing.
    However, it is an over-reaction to label oneself/or others as being overly judgemental, ignorant, or racist.

  222. colinb says

    I don’t have a comment as such.

    Just wanted to see if they are still using the ‘Swastika’ avatar they assigned to me.

  223. Monocle Smile says

    Chinese people use firecrackers to ward off evil and bad luck.
    Would it be OK to let off a few at school or in college during a difficult exam?

    This didn’t take place in school or in college during an exam.
    The red hats were there as part of an asshole right wing protest, which is what should be the focus.

  224. Safudas says

    It doesn’t matter if was a right wing protest, or a left wing Chinese Communist rally.
    Trying to overwhelm the noise by introducing even louder noises isn’t going to help, if you one’s intention is to de-escalate.
    The explanation for the drumming may now sound perfectly commendable, but it could have easily been given at the time, in front of all the cameras filming the stand-off, and not days later, and far away in a news interview.

  225. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Safudas
    Why are you implicitly defending the MAGA hat wearing asshats? The only thing I need to know is that they’re wearing a MAGA hat. That basically automatically makes them wrong.

  226. platosadvisor says

    At one point, Tracey made an off-the-cuff remark about a survey on the number of men & women who would date an additional partner if it would harm their primary relationship.

    I’m wondering if anyone might be familiar with this study and could post a link or reference to it. I’m interested in reading the details.

  227. StonedRanger says

    @Safudas The kid staring at the native american drummer was demonstrating quite clearly his bully smile. You know the one Im talking about. The one most bullies have that says they know that everyone will believe their explanation no matter how absurd it is because he is white, and like all those other kids, clearly abusing their privilege. There is no good excuse for what those kids did. They were there to demonstrate against womens reproductive rights. Did you get that, white christian males go every year to demonstrate against womens reproductive rights. While they do have the right to demonstrate anywhere, at any time, I too have the right to call them out on their oppressive bullshit. Thats not how you make america great again or ever.

  228. Ronald Kyle says

    @Safudas
     
    Questions…
     
    If those young fascists in the making were madrasa students declaring their desire to enforce sharia laws, would you have condemned the Native American guy for trying to difuse their insanity with a drum???
     
    Would you be worrying about coming here to even waste one letter in defense of those insane imbecilic thugs and attacking the guy with the drum? I bet you would have hailed him as a brave defender of American values!!!
     
    What is so damned special about this particular group of fascistic misogynists advertising their hatred for women and 65% of America…hmmmmm I wonder…. what could make this group be perceived as innocent victims when the exact same insanity from other quarters would be reviled as vile villains???

  229. t90bb says

    It looked to me that there were two hateful religious groups going at it…….

    The native american pretty courageously put himself in between the two. it was not a battle of noise per se, but rather the drumming drowning out much of the hate being verbally spewed. I have no idea what the kid was doing in the face of the native american other than to intimidate and be a dick. But what do you expect when the group he was with supports and idolizes a self professed pussy grabber who has no respect or regard for almost anyone but his orange self and his kids.

    But sure criticize the only party in the affair that seemed to have good intentions. Next your gonna tell uis he just should have done a rain dance and sent everyone to seek shelter?.

    It’s a crazy time man. up is down. down is up.

    Its like Friday when the president takes the stage and says he was proud to announce he had made a deal to re-oppen the govt mostly to the applause of his white house staff. Proud to announce he accepted that which he denied he would ever agree to? Its all about saving face….not governance. The man totally capitulated to the rightful demands of the sane and tried to pawn it off as a victory…or accomplishment, lol. What an utter clown show.

  230. Ronald Kyle says

    @t90bb

    …to the applause of his white house staff… The man totally capitulated to the rightful demands of the sane

    We perhaps can now see why they were applauding … maybe??? I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were applauding an albeit limited and most likley short-lived success of sanity.
     
    In this Allice Through the Looking Glass insane world we are living in, the kidnapper of the country gets applause when he returns the hostage only slightly scathed and does not get his extortion demands fully satisfied while still threatening breaking everyone’s knees in three weeks if they don’t willingly pay out the protection money he demands…. some people might see this as a glimmer of an ember of sanity within the ashes of what has long ago been insanely burned to smithereens.

  231. Safudas says

    Thank you all for your input.

    Firstly, I have deliberately left out the content of the protest and counter-protest in my discussion.
    To attribute my comments as support for the red caps or any other hate group is a non-sequitur.

    1) My query was simply to explore whether loud ritual drumming was an effective way of diffusing a tense situation.
    2) And given the inopportune circumstance at that particularly moment to learn about ritual drumming, was it ignorant/culturally insensitive/or as Tracie has put it “harboring Native American racism” to mis-interpret this man’s good intentions?

    Since this saga has generated so many arguments and counter-arguments, it would seem that the intended effect (summoning peace and harmony) was not achieved.

    And no, one can’t be “harboring” racism if one doesn’t have the context of what has happened.
    It is only racism if one refuses to acknowledge people’s cultural differences in achieving the same goals.

  232. Monocle Smile says

    was it ignorant/culturally insensitive/or as Tracie has put it “harboring Native American racism” to mis-interpret this man’s good intentions?

    This wasn’t a “misinterpretation.” The crowd started chanting “build the wall.” Where does that behavior come from?

  233. Ronald Kyle says

    @Safudas “It is only racism if one refuses to acknowledge people’s cultural differences”

    One of the cultural mores common to pretty much every human society… is respect towards the elderly.

    That boy with the smug fascistic bully smirk on his face under that bright red insignia of disdain for 65% of Americans, had no respect for that old man; neither did the throng of his fellow baboons.

    Did they teach them to respect the elderly at their Catholic school? You betcha!!!

    So then let’s see now… what is it that makes that old man less worthy of respect in their reckoning than the elderly they were hammered into respecting??? What could it be now??? I wonder!!!

  234. Ronald Kyle says

    @Safudas “an effective way of diffusing a tense situation”
     
    An effective way to have avoided the tense situation would have been for those BOYS to not have been rallying against the freedoms of women and to not have donned insignias of confrontation and disdain towards 65% of Americans.
     
    Their Catholic school teachers and parents should have known that when they go out en masse to provoke people they are most likely to encounter lots of “tense situations”.
     
    The guilty parties are the Catholic school teachers and the parents and of course the inculcations and indoctrinations those boys have received all their lives.

  235. Shiningone says

    I occasionally go onto a website called LiveLeak. It’s general format is people uploading videos for others to comment on. Similar to youtube but with less censorship. It can be very graphic, however I chose not to view those type of posts as once you have viewed them for curiosity sake, repeated viewing is just morbid. I still go on there because it also shows political and reality points of view that YT or main stream media would just censor or ignore to “protect” the innocence of the people.
    Anyhoo, the reason I’m saying this is because I just came across a video that I thought you all might enjoy. It does happen to appear on yt as well, so you don’t have to visit LL to if you don’t want to. The link will be from YT.
    The title of the video is “This Bible is Leaking Oil by the Gallons! Is it Proof of End Time Miracles?” I thought you might enjoy it because it shows the extreme idiocy that can develop from religious people.
    Hope you like it.

  236. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    So ye were trying to trick people into watching a video of a C-Section?

    Fucking classy, dude.

  237. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    Ah weird, seems the video’s now what ye said it was.

    What a strange world.

  238. t90bb says

    255 Monkeyshines……believers making videos about miracles lol. Have they called in legit scientists. If it were actually real you would think they would be in a rush to have the best scientific minds examine this. But noooooo…..

    Whats more likely..someone with access to the room its stored is staging the event…..or….God has chosen to reveal itself by making a book “leak” oil LOL……why dosent the book levitate..or grow…smell?? lol…..that magical christian gawd is so very clever aint he?? When hes not drowning all of humanity or demand humans own other humans as property its making leaking bibles?? Now thats one impressive deity indeed!

    They fact that you would even post this here tells us plenty about you. Now call Matt and tell him about his foibles and criticize them for not participating on the blog. Dummy.

    Dare I ask what you conclude after watching this “documentary”?

  239. t90bb says

    Monkeyshines…..can you find a few more vids that demonstrate God making a mans leg as long as the other?? or Gods image appearing in the shape of a cloud?? or gods image showing up on a piece of toast?? or a statue crying?

    I think I said a while back I was glad you were here. Aww forget it.

    One of the keys in dealing with newbies on the blog is to keep them talking. They cannot help themselves.

  240. says

    Safudas, there are a few common usages of ‘racist’, the most common being something like the belief that there are distinct ‘races’ which broadly share common attributes within each ‘race’, which are fundamentally inherent in the members. Another usage is in the context of the impact of an action, belief, or policy, where if one of those things results in a discriminatory effect towards a particular group that would traditionally be considered a ‘race’, then the action, belief, or policy is ‘racist’. Another common usage I’ve seen is that ‘racism’ is when you hate members of a ‘racial group’. Usually when I see it used in the latter way, it’s by people that don’t question the legitimacy of categorizing people into racial groups, but think the only problem is specifically hating people categorized into other groups, and that the hatred is what ‘racism’ refers to.
     
    Tracie’s example brings up a common problem with interpreting what other people are saying or doing, where people interpret things through a limited lens of expectations of what they already know and are familiar with, and that without knowing where someone is coming from, such as if we implicitly assume a similar background, then we can easily misinterpret their intent and be confident in our misunderstanding.
     
    Seeing as how her misunderstanding was the result of different cultural backgrounds that are strongly tied to ‘race’, I suspect that her reasoning was based on the second usage of ‘racist’ that I listed. Basically, that because she didn’t consider the difference in cultural background and interpreted the drumming as rude or aggressive, this resulted in a discriminatory effect on her judgment towards people with a different cultural history.
     
    I can see where the reasoning might be coming from, though the issue is considerably more broad than racism. It’s an interesting problem in terms of communication difficulties, even where you have common language. Even more general than that, it’s an interesting problem in terms of interpreting everything, including natural phenomena around us through the lens of our present understanding, and recognizing when the lens of our current model is distorting our view.
     
    As the issue is basically always occurring, and isn’t distinguishing between racial categorizations, or having an effect proportionally larger when it comes to racial categorizations instead of other categorizations, I wouldn’t include it as having a particular racial impact, and so wouldn’t use ‘racist’ to describe it. But, saying it was ignorant is entirely accurate, because she was ignorant of other cultural lenses by which the situation could be interpreted. ‘Ignorant’ isn’t just an accusation to be pointed at someone, even if some people use it that way, it’s also a simple descriptor of a person’s state relative to possessing some knowledge.
     
    It seems to me as if you want to point to the drummer and say that there is also fault on his side for failing to consider other cultural contexts, and that it shouldn’t only be the responsibility of the other side to realize that he might be acting according to a cultural context that they’re not familiar with, particularly with saying that he should have explained himself. The thing is, I don’t see it as an issue of one side having particular fault instead of another.
     
    I wouldn’t fault him for not anticipating them not understanding his intent any more than I would fault someone from a culture where handshaking is common for not anticipating that some other culture might interpret you thrusting your hand towards them upon meeting them as possibly being aggressive. From the perspective of people in a culture unfamiliar with handshaking, thrusting your hand towards a stranger could be begging for escalation and everyone should know that, regardless of your good intentions.
     
    Rather, it’s just something to be aware of, and try to weigh the possibility of misinterpretation in your interactions. It’s something you can take responsibility to do on your end, without necessarily faulting the other side for not having already considered the differences in backgrounds on their end. Where it’s possible and seems safe to do so, I try to positively interpret and respond to other people in positive ways, even when I suspect that they are not being honest. I have found this useful and productive, even if I’m the only one doing it. Considering the perspective of those I interact with is not something I withdraw because I see other people aren’t doing the same, because it doesn’t help me to misinterpret other people.
     
    Thinking he should offer an explanation of his drumming as he does it is like expecting a person who used to shaking hands to think to say, “In my culture, people grasp and shake each others’ hands when meeting to show non-hostility”. Basically, you’re expecting people to know, ahead of time, what the differences between the cultures are, and to address those proactively. But if they knew to address them ahead of time, they probably wouldn’t do those things at all. It’s a difficult problem to handle.

  241. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shiningone… re video
     

    It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.― Mark Twain

    When I tell dupes that Hindus too see miracles from their gods on daily bases, with statues slurping up from spoons of milk offered to them and healings and all sorts of other miracles, and then ask them if they are willing to start worshiping Ganesh and Hanuman, they invariably declare that those miracles are frauds or the works of the devil.
     
    Why is it that muggins always think miracles are true only if their gods are doing them, but if other gods do the exact same things they suddenly become discerning skeptics???
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MG64rk6qkg
    To watch the above video copy and paste it into the URL field of your browser

  242. Shiningone says

    @ Evil God of the Fiery Cloud
    I have NO idea where you got that impression from. Are you delusional?

  243. Shiningone says

    @ t90bb

    Listen you STUPID FUCKING RETARD! My name is NOT Monkeyshines! It is Shiningone. Not that that means anything to me, but you keep fucking being CHILDISH about it. How old are you, FUCKING 7?
    I have tried to be respectful in my first visit to this blog but it seems I was WASTING MY FUCKING TIME.
    So FUCK YOU! You want to act like a fucking child I WILL TREAT YOU LIKE ONE.
    If you want I can spend the NEXT FUCKING TEN YEARS, fucking up your comments! Believe me, I have that amount of dedication.
    The video was to show how FUCKING STUPID religious ass holes are. VERY MUCH LIKE YOU!
    If you REALLY want to see how someone can FUCKING TROLL I can oblige YOU 100% !!!
    YOU ARE A FUCKING TROLL! If no one has told you that yet they are fucking stupid.
    Come at me again and see what happens.

  244. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Shiningone – 263
    I dunno if it was a quirk of the browser I was using or what, but until I posted my comment the video I saw being portrayed in yer post was of a c-section.
    Considering how yer posts devolved over the past few days as no one was buying yer arguments, it wouldn’t be the first time someone tried for a last “fuck you” on their way out and showing grisly images to “support” their position is a favorite tactic of the likes of pro-lifers and vegans and such.
    When I saw the video as something regarding the removal of a baby I assumed that’s what ye were trying to do. However, since there’s no way to edit these posts that I’m aware of, I’ll happily eat my own error and extend my humblest apologies.

  245. Shiningone says

    @ Evil God of the Fiery Cloud
    That sounds as unlikely as god creating the universe. I post a link, which I had no idea, this forum actually displays the videos, and the link I do post, just happens to show a c-section for YOU? Your are full of shit.

  246. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @ Shiningone – 266
    Yes, I’m full of shit. For no reason whatsoever I fabricated a C-Section video just so I could look foolish moments later. Ye got me.
    Also, “you’re.” Or “you are.” Either works.

    Out of curiosity, are ye gonna call in the show today? Apparently Matt’s gonna be on.

  247. Shiningone says

    @ Evil God of the Fiery Cloud

    My spelling is atrocious. Due to the fact that I never really cared about it. You have to admit, the fact YOU got a c-section video from my link, considering we were talking about abortion in the blog is a statistical chance in the gazillions!
    No, I will not be calling into the show. I don’t consider talking over the phone as a good medium for real commination. For starters, people are under pressure from others listening in. You don’t have time to consider other peoples argument properly. You don’t have time to adequately formulate your responses etc. Things like that. I do appreciate you talking to me as a normal person though thank you. Matt’s going to be on, cool. I was just commenting in one of his videos on youtube, ” Matt, you are a smart man, all credit to you. You have a lot less ego than most of your co presenters. Except maybe Tracy. lol ”
    I don’t think the show would of made a fraction of it’s notoriety if Matt had not been on it.
    I am still hoping that he does actually come on this blog without you actually knowing it. Either way, I’m compiling a list of things to email him. I do love honest debate.

  248. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @ Shiningone – 268
    Yes, I agree. Which is why I was so suspicious that ye were saying it was something about a bible gushing oil but from my perspective it went to a video showing a c-section. Yer follow up expressing amazement that the post uploaded the actual video I took as an admission that ye were trying to post something saying it was something else and got caught. But then when I posted it went to what ye said it was. Hence the apology.

    If ye want to engage the likes of Matt, from what I’ve seen he responds to comments on his FB page so ye might be able to get him there. Tracie and sometimes John respond here from time to time, but I don’t believe I’ve seen Matt on here ever.

  249. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shiningone & @Evil God
     
    In post #69 I posted a couple of videos to support my point about how dangerous parturition can be… one of them for some reason showed up as a full video instead of just a link and that is the one that is about a C-section.
     
    So it looks like a glitch has occurred while EvilGod was looking at Shiningone’s video and the video from post #69 was played instead.
     
    So Shiningone, EviGod was not lying since there is indeed a C-section video on this thread and although the glitch is weird it is definitely not a fib EvilGod is making up despite his name (hehehe).
     
    @Shinigone… the web page will display the video as a playable video if you post its link… there is a way to avoid this that was explained in post #291 in the thread for episode #22.52
    here is a link that you can cut and paste in your browser’s URL to go there

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2018/12/30/open-thread-for-episode-22-52-tracie-and-jen/#comment-652477

  250. Shiningone says

    @ Evil God of the Fiery Cloud
    Well, lets take it as an anomaly and move on. I do appreciate your apology. As a matter of principle I don’t participate in Facebook. I guess I should confine myself to email. What time is today’s broadcast, I don’t see any indication of it on here yet?

  251. Shiningone says

    @ Ronald Kyle

    Thank you for your first personable and reasonable response to me. That would explain the discrepancy. Thank you for resolving it. Yes, EvilGod is a name to live up too lol. I don’t mind links to videos being automatically displayed, it’s quite convenient.

  252. Shiningone says

    Lol, I watching video after video ( i’m watching a lot of them atm ) of Matt being on with other hosts and all I can see is him biting his lip at their interference in what would otherwise be a straight forward beat down. It’s a credit to his patience. Except when Tracy is on, he respects her.

  253. Shiningone says

    @ Evil God of the Fiery Cloud
    That’s 10:30pm my time, I live in the UK. Thank you. Btw, you keep saying ye, I’m getting the impression you are from maybe Cornwall or Ireland ? Or is it just an idiosyncrasy of yours?

  254. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Shiningone
    Nah, when I’m not reigning supreme from the Fiery Cloud plotting the eventual and end of ye pathetic mortals in a burning inferno, I’m an American who lives on the East Coast. I THINK I picked up the habit of saying “ye” from an ex-gf who lived near Birmingham when we reconnected and talked online alot.
    Or it was a joke from the Futurama where Fry thought he was a robot (Hermes: Robots don’t say “ye”. Fry: I’ll show ye…) that I just took too fart and now can’t stop saying/typing.
    Either way, it’s something I live with now and couldn’t stop if I wanted to. Well, I could. But why bother?

  255. t90bb says

    277……Shiningone…….I APOLOGIZE for calling you monkeyshines. I will address you as Shiningone henceforth. It was childish of me. I am sorry. Sometimes I think I am funny when I am not. Its one of my many character flaws.

    Now…moving on….you said

    “LOL watching video after video ( i’m watching a lot of them atm ) of Matt being on with other hosts and all I can see is him biting his lip at their interference in what would otherwise be a straight forward beat down. It’s a credit to his patience. Except when Tracy is on, he respects her.”

    Are you implying Matt does not respect other hosts and co hosts?? THEY ALL bring something different to the table. I have come to appreciate them all. Perhaps you will too. They are all pretty knowledgeable but some are more broadly knowledgeable. I’d bet the house Matt respects them all. Are there times Matt thinks he was the defeater but lets his cohosts take their swing? I assume so. Btw….its not his show. I love Matt…but I am glad he is not on every week. I would appreciate him less if he was. You seem quite fixated on Matt I must say. You have taken shots at the other hosts several times. They all have great courage and bring their best I think it was you above that said you would not call the show due to difficulties in conversing/debating in that venue. They pull it off remarkably well I think. Cut them slack man.

    Also I am perplexed by your interest in the bible/oil video, to the point of posting it here. I mean you can, sure But the internet is full of theists making the most bizarre miracle claims. Was there a reason you singled this one out? If so I would be interested in knowing.

    You honestly rubbed me the wrong way right off for reasons I have previously stated in other posts. Regardless I let it get too personal. I am still not convinced you are being entirely honest but I have been wrong a time or two or like a million times,,,,lol.

  256. Safudas says

    Thank you Jared for your detailed reply.
    I’ve noticed you used the word “fault” 5 times in your last response, yet I have not faulted the drummer in any of my comments.

    My reaction to the footage was that the drumming wasn’t an effective way to de-escalate a situation where at one side of the protest was looking for a fight. Given now I know what the intention of the drumming was, I can re-watch the footage and see confusion and puzzlement in the faces of the people involved.

    It is a gross over-reaction to label anybody “racist” or “xenophobic” if they simply didn’t understand what they were seeing for the first time.

  257. Shiningone says

    @ t90bb

    I fully respect all the hosts as I know Matt does. It was just a small idiosyncrasy I noticed about him on occasion. I am not trying to “imply” anything. It was a very subtle gesture. That is all.
    You feel that I am trying to make huge grandiose statements on here for some reason. I not. It’s mostly just small talk. Stop reading so much into it and feeling so personally offended.
    Also, I am not “fixated” on Matt. I am merely showing deference to him as most others do in regards to his debating skill.

    As I already pointed out, I just happen to come across it and thought you all might get a little laugh out of it. I also had no idea video links appeared as the actual video. You really need to relax a bit. I am not here to attack anyone. I am not here to “convert” anyone. I abhor religions. I just came here because of like minded people. YouTube is full of crazies.
    I quite possibly introduced my self here with a poor choice of subject, seeing as it often engenders a strong emotion in others.
    In hindsight I should of gained the trust of most people here before hand. It’s done now. I can’t change that. What I can do is assure you all that I’m “one of you” and you will no doubt learn to see that in future comments.

  258. Ronald Kyle says

    @Safudas “It is a gross over-reaction to label anybody “racist” or “xenophobic” if they simply didn’t understand what they were seeing for the first time”

    They are not being called racists because they were innocent bystanders who were suddenly confronted with a native American drummer out of the blue and misinterpreted his gesture.

    They ARE racists and fascists in the making as PROVEN by all that effort they expended to organize a HATRED march against women and freedom while also wearing the bright-red advertisement of disdain towards 65% of Americans.

    The fascistic bully smug smirk that young fascist in the making had on his face while standing defiantly inches away from the face of an elderly man conveys the extent of contempt and DISRESPECT he had that can only be conduced by deeply inculcated racist condescension.

  259. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shiningone “What I can do is assure you all that I’m one of you “….
     
    It is not whether you are or are not “one of the tribe”…. tribalism is yet another trait of theistic unreasoning.
     
    What is of importance is that you respect facts and reality and reason and not use fallacious arguments with loaded equivocations and UNSCIENTIFIC slippery slope “moralizations” that smack of theistic casuistry and machinations.
     
    Another theistic machination is to ignore people who point out the fallacious unreasoning you are engaging in while calling them names and advertising that the excuse you are refusing to consider their rebuttals for your unreasoning is that they are lesser humans because they do not agree with your immoral pretenses of morality.
     
    You did nothing but exploit theistic machinations and “debating” shenanigans and then you compound the problem by telling us that you want to exploit yet another theistic ruse of proving that you are “one of the tribe”….
     
    I suggest you read this carefully…
    ⬛ 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings

  260. Ronald Kyle says

    @t90bb “…You honestly rubbed me the wrong way … I am still not convinced you are being entirely honest ….”
     
    I agree with you… I explained it in the previous post… I think you are right about not being convinced… neither am I… he might be trying “win those under the law…for the sake of” whatever he is trying to hawk…. but I too have on the very rare occasion been proven to be not entirely right… 😜😜😜

  261. Safudas says

    Ronald, non-sequitur again, as I was not referring to the red-caps.

    The words ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe’ were used by Tracie to describe her own unfamiliarity with ritual drumming (in the first 10 mins of this episode). I would disagree with her assessment.

    On the other hand I wouldn’t hesitate using these labels on the hard-core right wing protesters.

    I hope this clears things up.

  262. Shiningone says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal

    ” I’m still waiting for you to address my argument.”

    That’s because I believe I have already in other responses. You just can’t see it. I will say it again in another way.
    The intrinsic moral value lies in the fact that it is part of a process. A process that happens naturally and produces a fully formed, functioning human being. If we deny this intrinsic value, we deny our very existence.

  263. Ronald Kyle says

    @Safudas “I hope this clears things up”

    Ok… so you are just arguing about Tracie’s assertions… I get it now. I thought you were trying to lay blame on the Native American guy and not the fascistic thugs.

    I am glad that you agree that those fascistic brats were there inviting trouble and advertising their willingness to wrangle when they went out in public to deny women rights and to antagonize 65% of Americans with those red-caps…👍

  264. Ronald Kyle says

    @t90bb “I will take you at your word”

    His words and actions have proven the extent of his dissembling and lies… he is very evidently a malicious charlatan.

  265. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shenanigans “You are a fucking idiot”
    🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

    Thanks…. I appreciate you proving yourself as an abject charlatan.

  266. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shenanigans “The intrinsic moral value”

    What the hell is that? Is that like the original sin?

    @Shenanigans “If we deny this intrinsic value, we deny our very existence”

    One cannot deny the existence of something that exists… but one can easily and logically and scientifically and rationally laugh at and ridicule your unfounded baseless claptrap and gobbledygook phrases that you pulled out of your malodorous nether regions.

  267. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    The intrinsic moral value lies in the fact that it is part of a process. A process that happens naturally and produces a fully formed, functioning human being. If we deny this intrinsic value, we deny our very existence.

    Ok. I got the first part of the conditional, but not the second. The first part appears to be something like “if you don’t treat human pregnancy as a magic, sacred, holy thing, then…”. The second part, the part after the “then”, the undesirable consequence, I have no idea what you mean. Do you mean it literally? Surely not. I don’t treat human pregnancy as a magic, sacred, holy thing, and yet I’m still able to recognize the physical existence of human beings. What sort of metaphorical meaning do you have in mind? Do you mean that we would be unable to create a society that respects and enforces individual human rights? Well, that’s also patently wrong. Our current society allows for abortion, and also respects and enforces individual human rights for human beings. Maybe you mean something like “not protecting the rights of a clump of 100 cells, i.e. early pregnancy, will corrode the moral framework of people in our society and thereby corrode the human rights of real human beings”? Again, that also seems patently wrong, and I can point to our society as a counterexample. I really have no idea what you mean by that second part. I don’t know what sort of undesirable consequence you think will happen. Furthermore, I suspect that you don’t mean anything at all, and it’s just flowery language without any real meaning at all.

  268. Shiningone says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal
    #295

    There you go again, assuming my position all has something to do with “magic”, “sacred”, “holy thing”. These are, your, interpretations.
    It is, simply, a part of a process! If you deny one or any stage in that process, the whole process means, nothing. Science, is, a process. If we deny or ignore past discoveries or research done by previous scientists then the development stage we are at now, means nothing or may not even existed.
    Everything! we do in life is a process. If you go to university to study for a degree, lets say, in the final evaluation of your studies, your examiners choose to ignore one part of your studies as valueless, which prevents you from passing. Every part of your studies has value and meaning to the eventual outcome of your degree.
    I don’t think I can explain this to you in any way, that is going to convince you. You seem to have a mental block. With out every stage of a process being accounted for, the end of the process has no value or will not happen.
    I think you also may be stuck with the impression I want all woman to be forced into this same view. I don’t. This is just my opinion. However, if at some point this position is taken on, by people in general, as a kind of group acceptance of “the right thing to do” as it were, I would be happy.
    The other problem we have is, when the majority think the same way you do about the meaningless/valueless stage of pregnancy, it can lead to a slippery slope that we have just now seen in the new legislation past in NewYork. ‘Babies’, in other words, viable human beings, at 24 weeks can now be aborted (killed/murdered), and even killed after that if “health risks” to the mother our found. Notice the ambiguity of “health risk”, that could be interpreted in any number of ways be different doctors. They don’t just c-section the unwanted human being and send it off to adoption, they, kill it first!
    If you can not see the inhumanity in that, we have nothing more to say to each other.

  269. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shenanigans “It is, simply, a part of a process! If you deny one or any stage in that process, the whole process means, nothing.”

    That is not what you said… what you said is that aborting a fetus is equivalent to denying the existence of human kind, because it is a “denial of the intrinsic moral value”. Earlier you even said that people who are pro-choice are inhuman who deny humanity.

    Halting ONE process before it becomes anything does not deny the existence of every other process that is left to continue proceeding.

    Moreover, “intrinsic moral value” of a lump of cells is an absolutely meaningless gobbledygook that can only mean something in the realm of religious claptrap… CAN YOU EXPLAIN what you mean by an “intrinsic MORAL value” in the process of some cells going through a process of mitosis??? Is there “intrinsic moral value” in cancer cells?

  270. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shenanigans “With out every stage of a process being accounted for, the end of the process has no value or will not happen.”
     
    Yes… that is right… but that is not denying the existence of the process nor the existence of every other process that took place or is taking place or is going to take place.
     
    You seem to think that if one process is halted then every single other process is also halted by some magical connection you seem to think has some gobbledygook value?
     
    If one process out of billions is halted and discontinued it does not affect anything other than that process and if that process is nothing but a lump of cells that are not allowed to proceed in their mitosis then there is absolutely no more gobbledygook value to it than say removing a tumor or removing an appendix or masturbating.
     
    Masturbating is a process and it can be halted… so if one aborts a masturbation process then he is denying the “intrinsic moral value” of his sperm and then by your illogical claptrap he is also denying the existence of humanity too???

  271. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shenanigans ” it can lead to a slippery slope that we have just now seen in the new legislation past in NewYork. ‘Babies’, in other words, viable human beings, at 24 weeks can now be aborted”

    Do you understand that slippery slope fear mongering is a fallacy???

    So you agree then that before 24 weeks into the “process” it is not anything special and it is not yet a viable human being????

    Let’s see now… if we agree with your number for argument’s sake… do you agree then that having an abortion before 24 weeks is a perfectly normal and fine CHOICE to make?

    Or do you want to prevent ALLLLLL abortions before 24 weeks too just because of the “slippery slope” scare mongering you have scared yourself with????

  272. Ronald Kyle says

    @Shenanigans “if at some point this position is taken on, by people in general, as a kind of group acceptance of “the right thing to do” as it were, I would be happy”
     
    Bingo!!!
     
    So is that your aim? Is that what you are here wrangling for?
     
    What other things are you doing to bring this wish to fruition?
     
    Did you vote for pernicious liars so that they can stack supreme courts in favor of your wish regardless of how much vitiation they will do to the country in other regards?
     
    Do you support religious activists to help bring about your wish? Do you donate money to groups who are actively seeking to change the laws of the land to deny women their right to decide their own life trajectory?

  273. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    It is, simply, a part of a process! If you deny one or any stage in that process, the whole process means, nothing.

    I don’t understand what you mean by the word “means” in this context. Please explain. Based on the rest of the post, I guess you mean “value”. That’s fine with me. I don’t see why I should value a hunk of tissue without a brain, and that’s what a fetus is before month 6.

    ‘Babies’, in other words, viable human beings, at 24 weeks can now be aborted (killed/murdered),

    Fetuses don’t have a working brain before 6 months, and week 24 is before month 6. Before that point, they’re not babies. This is a scientifically-based cutoff point. “Murder” is not the correct word when referring to the destruction of a hunk of flesh without a brain.

    and even killed after that if “health risks” to the mother our found.

    I’d need to see the exact text of the law, but surely it’s better to kill the fetus instead of seeing the woman and fetus both die?

    Notice the ambiguity of “health risk”, that could be interpreted in any number of ways be different doctors. They don’t just c-section the unwanted human being and send it off to adoption, they, kill it first!

    This is almost assuredly false. Do you know what you call an abortion for a potentially viable fetus? “A birth”. They don’t just kill viable fetuses gratuitously.

    If you can not see the inhumanity in that, we have nothing more to say to each other.

    I see nothing inhumane about destroying some tissue that doesn’t have a working brain. Regarding the termination of pregnancy after 6 months, you’re falsely describing modern medical practices.

  274. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @suedoenimm3 #303:

    Her bill would have basically legalized infanticide. Murder.

     
    Article: Wikipedia – Kathy Tran, Abortion Bill

    While testifying in the House of Delegates, Tran said that her bill would maintain Virginia’s current law allowing third-term abortions to occur up to the point of dilating, which was accused by Republicans of allowing legal infanticide. Tran’s bill would not allow abortions to be performed as the fetus is entering a woman’s birth canal. […] She said that she misspoke, and that when asked about when a woman is dilating, she should have said, “Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.”

  275. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says February 2, 2019 at 12:20 pm
    .
    What point are you trying to make with that quote from Ms. Tran?
    .

  276. Monocle Smile says

    Sue, the point is that you’re wrong and lying about abortion bills and practices, as per usual. It’s not hard to be honest here and yet you refuse. I suspect you have also used some browser tools to screen out certain people so you don’t have to address their arguments, not because they are trolls.

  277. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says February 2, 2019 at 12:20 pm
    .
    What do you say, CompulsoryAccount? Does Ms. Tran’s revision make it all good? Are you fine with killing a fetus a couple days before a normal birth?
    .

  278. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @suedoenimm3 #307:

    Are you fine with killing a fetus a couple days before a normal birth?

     
    Article: Outlawing Late Abortion Seemed Like Such a Reasonable Idea Until I Needed One Myself

    I picked up my knitting needles and began a tiny sweater for this next baby girl. I was working the final rows of that sweater at an ultrasound, which my midwife hoped would ease my relentless worry. When she saw me knitting, the doctor’s eyes welled with tears.
    […]
    She listed my options: adoption, abortion, or parenting this child with heavy medical intervention for her short life. If I chose to deliver my baby, it would be a high-risk birth for both of us, complicated by my baby’s condition. […] I was 35 weeks pregnant.
     
    The neurologist delivered more bad news: additional brain anomalies. My little daughter would likely never walk, talk, swallow, or support the weight of her head. She would require brain surgery to extend her life, but no surgery could ever cure her.
     
    “What can she do?” I asked. “Does a child like mine just sleep all day?”
     
    He winced at the question. “Children like yours are not generally comfortable enough to sleep.”
    […]
    Mine was a hard, painful choice. I carry it, but I have never once regretted it because I followed my heart and my values and did the best I could for my daughter. It is a terrible thing to have to choose between peace and life – but it is important that families, not committees, not politicians, not governments, make the best informed decisions for our children. We do so with deep and abiding love that cannot be duplicated in Congress.

  279. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says February 8, 2019 at 11:51 am
    .
    .
    “Article: Outlawing Late Abortion Seemed Like Such a Reasonable Idea Until I Needed One Myself
    .
    The neurologist delivered more bad news: additional brain anomalies. My little daughter would likely never walk, talk, swallow, or support the weight of her head. She would require brain surgery to extend her life, but no surgery could ever cure her.”
    .
    .
    Truly a heartbreaking case.
    .
    Perhaps you missed my previous postings. Perhaps you missed my citation of Texas law. Perhaps you haven’t viewed my YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-GcyQTaBg4
    .
    Texas has exceptions to the post 20 week prohibition.
    .
    “SUBCHAPTER C. ABORTION PROHIBITED AT OR AFTER 20 WEEKS POST-FERTILIZATION
    Sec. 171.046. EXCEPTIONS. ……
    .
    (c) The prohibitions and requirements under Sections 171.043, 171.044, and 171.045(b) do not apply to an abortion performed on an unborn child who has a severe fetal abnormality.”
    .
    I believe the case you cited would have qualified for that exception. So in Texas at least the general prohibition would not have presented a particular hardship for Ms. Carson.
    .
    As tragic as Ms. Carson’s case was it doesn’t succeed in establishing that any and all prohibitions against late term abortions are odious or unreasonable.
    .
    As I understand it the case you quoted originated in the state of Massachusetts. I haven’t checked but I think the odds are better than even that Massachusetts has similar exceptions. But that doesn’t matter. The fact that at least one state, Texas, has a (late term) prohibition with reasonable exceptions establishes that reasonable prohibitions exist.
    .
    I look forward to your next series of quotes.
    .

  280. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @suedoenimm3 #310:

    Perhaps you missed my previous postings. Perhaps you missed my citation of Texas law. Perhaps you haven’t viewed my YouTube video.

    You’re just not that interesting. No further interaction is warranted.

  281. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says February 10, 2019 at 12:55 am
    .
    “You’re just not that interesting. No further interaction is warranted.”
    .
    Yes of course. That must be it. It certainly wouldn’t be that you have no argument, nothing left to bring but ad hom.
    .
    Cheers.
    .

  282. buddyward says

    @suedoenimm3 #303

    What exactly in her bill that legalizes infanticide? Can you please cite the source?

  283. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    buddyward says February 11, 2019 at 2:34 pm
    .
    “What exactly in her bill that legalizes infanticide? Can you please cite the source?”
    .
    http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491
    .
    The changes to 18.2-74 would have significantly reduced the oversight and standards. It would have reduced the physician oversight from three physicians to one. It would have reduced the standard on the (mental) health impact on the woman to basically nothing specific.
    .
    So a physician greatly sympathetic to the a pro-choice ideal – but lacking in sympathy to the unborn child – might have been able to accept a mere assertion by the woman that her “mental health” would be “impaired”.
    .
    You might argue that a fetus, even an arbitrarily short time before a natural delivery, is not an “infant”. I would argue that it is close enough to being an infant. Close enough that ending that life should be prohibited in the absence of firmly and objectively established extenuating circumstances.
    .
    You might argue that the implied worst case (arbitrary elective termination of a normal non-threatening late term fetus) does not and will not occur. I then would argue that you should therefore have no objection to prohibiting it.
    .

  284. buddyward says

    @suedoenimm3 #314

    http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491
    .
    The changes to 18.2-74 would have significantly reduced the oversight and standards. It would have reduced the physician oversight from three physicians to one. It would have reduced the standard on the (mental) health impact on the woman to basically nothing specific.
    .
    So a physician greatly sympathetic to the a pro-choice ideal – but lacking in sympathy to the unborn child – might have been able to accept a mere assertion by the woman that her “mental health” would be “impaired”.
    .
    You might argue that a fetus, even an arbitrarily short time before a natural delivery, is not an “infant”. I would argue that it is close enough to being an infant. Close enough that ending that life should be prohibited in the absence of firmly and objectively established extenuating circumstances.
    .
    You might argue that the implied worst case (arbitrary elective termination of a normal non-threatening late term fetus) does not and will not occur. I then would argue that you should therefore have no objection to prohibiting it.

    Infanticide has a legal definition which is killing a new born. I see nothing in the amendment that supports this. Your argument that it is close enough is not consistent with what the law defines as infanticide.

  285. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    buddyward says February 12, 2019 at 12:03 pm
    .
    “Infanticide has a legal definition which is killing a new born.”.
    .
    Really? Show me the actual legal definition of “infanticide”.
    .
    “I see nothing in the amendment that supports this. Your argument that it is close enough is not consistent with what the law defines as infanticide.”
    .
    You don’t know the law. Show me the law.
    .
    You are arguing semantics. Do you think your assertion of a semantic error invalidates my position?
    .
    For one thing, I said “basically infanticide”. And I hold to that.
    .
    Is it your view that causing the death of a normal fetus in an otherwise normal pregnancy moments before a natural birth is just fine because the fetus is not an “infant”?
    .

  286. buddyward says

    @suedoenimm3 #316

    .
    “Infanticide has a legal definition which is killing a new born.”.
    .
    Really? Show me the actual legal definition of “infanticide”.
    .
    “I see nothing in the amendment that supports this. Your argument that it is close enough is not consistent with what the law defines as infanticide.”
    .
    You don’t know the law. Show me the law.
    .
    You are arguing semantics. Do you think your assertion of a semantic error invalidates my position?
    .
    For one thing, I said “basically infanticide”. And I hold to that.
    .
    Is it your view that causing the death of a normal fetus in an otherwise normal pregnancy moments before a natural birth is just fine because the fetus is not an “infant”?

    Legal definition of infanticide:
    Using the google machine to look up the legal definition of infanticide produced the following:

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Infanticide
    https://study.com/academy/lesson/infanticide-in-law-definition-statistics.html
    http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/Infanticide.aspx

    Here is the Virginia state law with regards to infacticide
    https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71.1/

    The Virginia state law is consistent with the legal definition stated in the above links. Your usage of the word does not coincide with the legal definitions.

    You are using terms that is not commonly acceptable under the law. This is not semantics but actual legal terms. Your usage of the word infanticide is not the same as what the state of Virginia consider as the legal meaning of infanticide. Can you show me a law that says otherwise?

    You are choosing to use these words in induce an emotional reaction or to appeal to emotion which is a fallacy. Again, this is not a semantic issue. This is fundamentally using the right word in order to communicate properly. I reject your description to the amendments as supporting infanticide or murder because you are inappropriately using those legal terms.

  287. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    buddyward says February 13, 2019 at 1:05 am
    .
    “Legal definition of infanticide:
    Using the google machine to look up the legal definition of infanticide produced the following:
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Infanticide
    https://study.com/academy/lesson/infanticide-in-law-definition-statistics.html
    http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/Infanticide.aspx
    Here is the Virginia state law with regards to infacticide
    https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-71.1/
    The Virginia state law is consistent with the legal definition stated in the above links.”
    .
    Very good. Well done. I make a small apology for not researching further. I’ve done a fair amount of research already and I’m grateful you stepped up to contribute a share.
    .
    I had done a quick search and found this:
    https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/infanticide/
    Which has this, “In criminal law, infanticide is not considered a separate and distinct offense, except where made so by statute, but is merely descriptive of a homicide, the subject of which is a newborn child.“
    But as you have found there are many states (and Canada) that have specific statutes.
    .
    I stand corrected.
    .
    “Your usage of the word does not coincide with the legal definitions.”
    .
    True. But I say that I did not present it as a legalistic assessment. It is true that I have been quoting numerous statutes but my statement, “basically infanticide”, was qualitative assessment. i.e. my view and my opinion. It is also the view of a good number of legislators. And I stand by my statement.
    .
    “You are choosing to use these words in induce an emotional reaction or to appeal to emotion which is a fallacy.”
    .
    I don’t believe that I am appealing to emotion. I assume you view the causing of the death of a child ten minutes after its birth as a crime, worthy of legal proscription. Is your view on that based on emotion?
    .
    If I point out that a fetus ten minutes before birth is hardly any different from a child ten minutes after its birth, how is that emotional? I’m appealing to the same sense you have for protecting the born child.
    .
    That’s probably enough for this post but I want to restate the question I ask before with slightly revised wording. Is it your view that causing the death of a normal fetus in an otherwise normal pregnancy moments before a natural birth is just fine because it doesn’t meet a legal definition of infanticide?
    .

  288. buddyward says

    True. But I say that I did not present it as a legalistic assessment. It is true that I have been quoting numerous statutes but my statement, “basically infanticide”, was qualitative assessment. i.e. my view and my opinion. It is also the view of a good number of legislators. And I stand by my statement.

    I am going to be a little pendantic here but your exact words in 303 are:

    Her bill would have basically legalized infanticide. Murder.

    The number of legistlators that share your opinion does not make the characterization of the bill as infanticide to be true. It is either infanticide or it is not. We cannot simply make arbitrary definitions of a legal term and expect everyone to just accept it specially if what you are describing is an amendment to a law which is by definition is a legal matter.

    I don’t believe that I am appealing to emotion. I assume you view the causing of the death of a child ten minutes after its birth as a crime, worthy of legal proscription. Is your view on that based on emotion?

    If I point out that a fetus ten minutes before birth is hardly any different from a child ten minutes after its birth, how is that emotional? I’m appealing to the same sense you have for protecting the born child.

    The word infanticide has a very negative connotation. It is in fact a crime. A crime whose victims happen to be infants. That causes a lot of emotions to many people. What is objectionable about it is that so far you have not shown anything in the bill that can be described as infanticide.

    That’s probably enough for this post but I want to restate the question I ask before with slightly revised wording. Is it your view that causing the death of a normal fetus in an otherwise normal pregnancy moments before a natural birth is just fine because it doesn’t meet a legal definition of infanticide?

    You probably already know the answer to this but I will state it for clarity. I do not object to an abortion that threatens the physical and mental health of the mother. Legal definitions are there to help us identify to whether or not an act is lawful.

    Allow me to use and expand on your example. If you consider a fetus 10 minutes before being born as an infant, then would it still be an infant 20 minutes before? How about an hour before? How about 400,000 minutes before? At what point is a fetus an infant? I see no distinction based on the question that you are posing. This is why we need a clear definition and distinction of what an infant is. Saying that it is close enough when trying to restricts a person’s rights or accuse them of a crime is not good enough.

  289. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    buddyward says February 15, 2019 at 12:54 am
    .
    (BTW, my previous response took about a day from the time I hit “Post” until the time it appeared in the blog.)
    .
    “I am going to be a little pendantic here but your exact words in 303 are:
    Her bill would have basically <>legalized<> infanticide. Murder.”
    .
    The italics (or bold) was your addition. You put the bold on the wrong word. It should be “Her bill would have <>basically<> legalized infanticide.”
    .
    “The number of legistlators that share your opinion does not make the characterization of the bill as infanticide to be true. It is either infanticide or it is not. We cannot simply make arbitrary definitions of a legal term and expect everyone to just accept it specially if what you are describing is an amendment to a law which is by definition is a legal matter.”
    .
    “Characterization” and “describing” law is not law. It is not statute. It is not code. To imply otherwise is equivocation or conflation. Lawmakers have all sorts of discussion before statutes are written. Is everything they discuss that is not equivalent to current statutes therefore invalid?
    .
    “The word infanticide has a very negative connotation. It is in fact a crime. A crime whose victims happen to be infants. That causes a lot of emotions to many people.”
    .
    So… are you saying your view on infanticide/causing the death of a newly born child is indeed based on emotion?
    .
    “What is objectionable about it is that so far you have not shown anything in the bill that can be described as infanticide.”
    .
    When you say “described” do you mean “described” or do you mean “meets the current statutory definition”?
    .
    What is the difference between a fetus/unborn child just before birth and an infant/newly born child? The obvious material differences can be as little as a few seconds or a few millimeters. Is there more you would add?
    .
    “You probably already know the answer to this but I will state it for clarity. I do not object to an abortion that threatens the physical and mental health of the mother. Legal definitions are there to help us identify to whether or not an act is lawful.”
    .
    Delegate Tran’s amendment did not succeed. What it proposed is not lawful. You have been arguing in favor of Tran’s amendment. You have been arguing for something that does not have a definition that is legal and does not comply with legal definitions.
    .
    What way do we lawfully determine threats to the mental health of the mother? Had the amendment succeeded it would have then been possible for a woman to obtain a late term abortion merely on her assertion that her mental health would be “impaired”. Do you disagree with that assessment? Can you show anything in the laws that renders my assessment untrue? Are you OK with a woman obtaining a late term abortion based only on her assertion of a negative mental health effect?
    .
    “Allow me to use and expand on your example. If you consider a fetus 10 minutes before being born as an infant, then would it still be an infant 20 minutes before? How about an hour before? How about 400,000 minutes before? At what point is a fetus an infant? I see no distinction based on the question that you are posing. This is why we need a clear definition and distinction of what an infant is. Saying that it is close enough when trying to restricts a person’s rights or accuse them of a crime is not good enough.”
    .
    You are familiar with the concept of the “viability” of the fetus, aren’t you? Others have mentioned it and I’ve covered it in other posts and my video. It is used to draw a legal line. The line varies by state ranging from 20 to 26 weeks (or no limit at all in a few states). Yes, it is an imperfect legal compromise. But I (and dozens of state legislatures) think it is fair and workable. Given that a woman can obtain an abortion – on demand – up to the 20th week (or later in some cases) plus the exception for the – objectively determined – health of the mother and the exception for severe fetal abnormalities, I (we) see no cruel or unusual hardship on women.
    .
    But you want to draw the line on prohibiting the causing the death of a child (born or unborn) at what… the beginning of labor pains… or crowning? That wouldn’t be consistent with the law in Virginia, Texas, Massachusetts, California, and about forty other states.
    .
    Yes, I agree that “we need a clear definition and distinction”. One case would be in assessing the mental health risk to a woman when it comes to circumventing “the State’s legitimate interest… in protecting… the life of a fetus that may become a child”. (The last bit is from the relevant Supreme Court decission.)
    .

  290. buddyward says

    The italics (or bold) was your addition. You put the bold on the wrong word. It should be “Her bill would have basically legalized infanticide.”

    I do not understand what makes you the expert on what I intend to emphasize. I purposefully bolded the word legalized to show that you actually did not say “basically infanticide” as you have claimed but instead you said “basically legalized infanticide”. This is to show that you are misquoting yourself.

    Further more you are claiming that you do not meant infanticide in a legal sense but you are literally using the word “legalized” in your statement.

    “Characterization” and “describing” law is not law. It is not statute. It is not code. To imply otherwise is equivocation or conflation. Lawmakers have all sorts of discussion before statutes are written. Is everything they discuss that is not equivalent to current statutes therefore invalid?

    .
    If you and the lawmakers describe the bill as infanticide and the bill does not support infanticide then yes, you (and the lawmakers) are incorrectly describing the bill.

    So… are you saying your view on infanticide/causing the death of a newly born child is indeed based on emotion?

    No, I am saying that using that word to describe the bill invokes emotions to many people. You are using words to invoke an emotional response instead of logical ones. This is a fallacy called an appeal to emotions.

    When you say “described” do you mean “described” or do you mean “meets the current statutory definition”?

    Your intial statement is:

    Her bill would have basically legalized infanticide.

    You described her bill as legalized infanticide. My question was:

    What exactly in her bill that legalizes infanticide? Can you please cite the source?

    As far as I can tell, her bill removes some restrictions from the current statute. It does not add any language with regards infanticide as it is described in the law. You have not shown anything in the bill that supports infanticide.

    What is the difference between a fetus/unborn child just before birth and an infant/newly born child? The obvious material differences can be as little as a few seconds or a few millimeters. Is there more you would add?

    The law is obviously making that distinction when it comes to determining whether or not infanticide have been committed. This distinction have been accepted by many states. You are now trying to redefine the accepted definition of infanticide without any reasonable justification other than “it is close enough in time or in distance”.

    Delegate Tran’s amendment did not succeed. What it proposed is not lawful.

    I am having a hard time trying to find documentation that the bill did not pass. The best that I can find is here: https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+vot+H0804V0002+HB2491

    Where the results seems to be in-favor of the bill where there are 5 votes yea and 3 votes nay. Perhaps you can show me an official document that says otherwise. Further more, it does not matter whether or not the bill passed. I am not arguing whether or not the bill is lawful.

    You have been arguing in favor of Tran’s amendment. You have been arguing for something that does not have a definition that is legal and does not comply with legal definitions.

    I am arguing that your description that the bill supports infanticide is not justified. I have already demonstrated that the word infanticide is indeed a legal term. You agreed that it is a legal term. Why is it all of a sudden your position that infanticide does not have a definition that is legal?

    What way do we lawfully determine threats to the mental health of the mother? Had the amendment succeeded it would have then been possible for a woman to obtain a late term abortion merely on her assertion that her mental health would be “impaired”. Do you disagree with that assessment? Can you show anything in the laws that renders my assessment untrue? Are you OK with a woman obtaining a late term abortion based only on her assertion of a negative mental health effect?

    The law does not determine the mental health of anybody. The law yields that determination to the experts, the medical professionals that have expertise in the field. Which in the profession itself, have their own legal rules and regulations that they have to follow. Please show me in the bill where it says the woman can simply assert that her mental state would be impaired.

    You are familiar with the concept of the “viability” of the fetus, aren’t you? Others have mentioned it and I’ve covered it in other posts and my video. It is used to draw a legal line. The line varies by state ranging from 20 to 26 weeks (or no limit at all in a few states). Yes, it is an imperfect legal compromise. But I (and dozens of state legislatures) think it is fair and workable. Given that a woman can obtain an abortion – on demand – up to the 20th week (or later in some cases) plus the exception for the – objectively determined – health of the mother and the exception for severe fetal abnormalities, I (we) see no cruel or unusual hardship on women.
    .
    But you want to draw the line on prohibiting the causing the death of a child (born or unborn) at what… the beginning of labor pains… or crowning? That wouldn’t be consistent with the law in Virginia, Texas, Massachusetts, California, and about forty other states.

    Viability has nothing to do with what I asked. I asked the question to demonstrate that you are using some arbitrary point in the pregnancy to determine infanticide because you think it is close enough. Whereas the law does have a distinct point in the pregnancy where termination of the fetus will be considered as infanticide. You are trying to expand the definition of infanticide beyond to what the law have already described without any justifications other than “it is close enough”. The laws in the state that you have mentioned does have a distinct point where an act can be considered as infanticide. You are trying to blur that line.

    Yes, I agree that “we need a clear definition and distinction”. One case would be in assessing the mental health risk to a woman when it comes to circumventing “the State’s legitimate interest… in protecting… the life of a fetus that may become a child”. (The last bit is from the relevant Supreme Court decission.)

    You are quote mining here when you reference “the State’s legitimate interest… in protecting… the life of a fetus that may become a child”. This is from the document “Wrongful Death and the Unborn Child: Should Viability Be a Prerequisite for a Cause or Action?” Which is a case that questions whether or not a third party would or should be liable for the wrongful death of the fetus that is not viable. This is a case about wrongful death as described in the law. An abortion is not considered as wrongful death. As a matter of fact that same document states the following:

    “Expansion of wrongful death protection to all fetuses would also be consistent with a woman’s right to choose.”

  291. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    buddyward says February 16, 2019 at 5:07 pm
    .
    What you say is a continuous string of equivocations, straw men, and red herring fallacies.
    .
    Many posts back I used the expression “basically legalized infanticide”. Despite my further elaboration you insist on disregarding the relevant conditional, “basically”. That conditional establishes that statement to be figurative and not literal. You insist on characterizing it as literal reference to another statute. That is an inimical distortion. Straw man.
    .
    You repeatedly demand that I defend your straw man and regardless of what other point I might bring up. Red herring. Dishonest.
    .
    Your argument consists of continuous repetition of:
    “You used the word infanticide.”
    “Prove Tran’s amendment legalizes infanticide per statutes.”
    .
    Straw man. Red herring. Bogus.
    .
    .
    “I do not understand what makes you the expert on what I intend to emphasize.”
    .
    I am the expert on what I wrote and what I intended. Your emphasis was equivocation and a dishonest distortion. Straw man.
    .
    .
    “Further more you are claiming that you do not meant infanticide in a legal sense but you are literally using the word “legalized” in your statement.”
    .
    Right. Using similar words in different contexts is not a problem. You are taking similar sounding words out of their contexts and equating them. Bogus. I’ve explained the contexts and differences before and you persist in this equivocation.
    .
    .
    “No, I am saying that using that word to describe the bill invokes emotions to many people. You are using words to invoke an emotional response instead of logical ones. This is a fallacy called an appeal to emotions.”
    .
    You can’t say what my intent is. What you say is an unsupportable assertion.
    .
    If I were posting pictures of dismembered fetuses you might have some justification in your assertion but I have done nothing like that.
    .
    I’m talking to you here. So do you feel yourself unfairly emotionally swayed? Don’t you consider yourself resistant to undue emotional persuasion? What emotions are you feeling? I started with the assumption that you are not emotionally susceptible. So an appeal to emotion would be pointless and irrelevant.
    .
    Virtually any discussion will evoke some emotion in some people. If you make that the standard then basically all arguments, including yours, would be “appeal to emotion”.
    .
    Your assertion is bogus.
    .
    .
    “.”When you say “described” do you mean “described” or do you mean “meets the current statutory definition”?”.”
    “Your intial statement is:
    Her bill would have basically legalized infanticide.
    You described her bill as legalized infanticide. My question was:
    What exactly in her bill that legalizes infanticide? Can you please cite the source?”
    .
    You didn’t answer the question.
    .
    “.“ What is the difference between a fetus/unborn child just before birth and an infant/newly born child? The obvious material differences can be as little as a few seconds or a few millimeters. Is there more you would add?”.“
    “The law is obviously making that distinction when it comes to determining whether or not infanticide have been committed.”
    .
    That’s not the question. You didn’t answer the question. Tell me what you see as the difference between a normal fetus just before birth and an infant/newly born child?
    .
    “You are now trying to redefine the accepted definition of infanticide without any reasonable justification other than “it is close enough in time or in distance”.
    .
    No I am not. That doesn’t follow. Bogus.
    .
    “Where the results seems to be in-favor of the bill where there are 5 votes yea and 3 votes nay.”
    .
    Look closer. That was the vote to table the bill. It didn’t make it out of committee.
    .
    “Further more, it does not matter whether or not the bill passed. I am not arguing whether or not the bill is lawful.”
    .
    It does matter that the bill didn’t pass. You are arguing in favor of the content of bill. You are OK with the reducing of the restrictions. Thus you are arguing a position that is contrary to the currently valid law. You repeatedly (and unjustifiably) demand that I show current written law to confirm what I say. You make demands that you do not and cannot hold to yourself. Dishonest.
    .
    “Why is it all of a sudden your position that infanticide does not have a definition that is legal?”
    .
    It’s not. You read that wrong. I said your position doesn’t have the law backing it up.
    .
    “The law does not determine the mental health of anybody.”
    .
    Not in detail but it does provide guidance and standards. And the bill would basically have removed them. You can see the strike-throughs there in the published text.
    .
    You didn’t answer my questions. Were in the law does it say a simple assertion of mental health exception is not sufficient? Are you OK with a woman obtaining a late term abortion based on little more than her claim of a mental health effect?
    .
    “Please show me in the bill where it says the woman can simply assert that her mental state would be impaired.”
    .
    Show me in statutory law where it says that you may sing in the shower.
    Show me in the bill where it says she must meet a higher standard than simple assertion.
    .
    “Whereas the law does have a distinct point in the pregnancy where termination of the fetus will be considered as infanticide.”
    .
    You didn’t answer my question. At what point in time do you personally think the line should drawn to prohibit causing the death of child (born or unborn). I’m guessing, at the instant of crowning?
    .
    “You are trying to expand the definition of infanticide beyond to what the law have already described without any justifications other than “it is close enough”.”
    .
    No. Bogus. You are equivocating similar sounding words from different contexts.
    .
    “You are quote mining here when you reference “the State’s legitimate interest… in protecting… the life of a fetus that may become a child”. This is from the document “Wrongful Death and the Unborn…”
    .
    Wrong on both counts.
    The quote was from the Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.
    .
    .
    Cheers.
    .

  292. buddyward says

    @suedoenimm3

    What you say is a continuous string of equivocations, straw men, and red herring fallacies.

    Many posts back I used the expression “basically legalized infanticide”. Despite my further elaboration you insist on disregarding the relevant conditional, “basically”. That conditional establishes that statement to be figurative and not literal. You insist on characterizing it as literal reference to another statute. That is an inimical distortion. Straw man.

    What in the world is a figurative infanticide? If you do not mean a literal infanticide then there is no offense being comitted. You are trying to hide behind the word basically in order to avoid having to justify your statement that it is infanticide but ignore it when you are arguing that a fetus is close enough to an infant. The question I have asked in the beginning is simple and to date you have not provided any answers. You have avoided it all this time. It is simple logic, either it is infanticide or it is not. If it is then justify your claim, if it is not then admit that it isn’t. It is not a strawman when I am literally asking you to justify the statement you have made.

    I am the expert on what I wrote and what I intended. Your emphasis was equivocation and a dishonest distortion. Straw man.

    You literally misquoted yourself. That does not indicate that you are an expert on what you wrote. As I have said before, the emphasis I made is to show that you did not say what you claim you said.

    Right. Using similar words in different contexts is not a problem. You are taking similar sounding words out of their contexts and equating them. Bogus. I’ve explained the contexts and differences before and you persist in this equivocation.

    In what different contexts would the definition of infanticide be different?

    You can’t say what my intent is. What you say is an unsupportable assertion.

    I did not say that was your intent. I said the word invokes an emotional response rather than a logical one. Please show me where I asserted your intent.

    I’m talking to you here. So do you feel yourself unfairly emotionally swayed? Don’t you consider yourself resistant to undue emotional persuasion? What emotions are you feeling? I started with the assumption that you are not emotionally susceptible. So an appeal to emotion would be pointless and irrelevant.

    An appeals to emotions fallacy does not have to be effective in order to be fallacious. It just have to be identified as being fallacious. The fact that it did not sway me simply means that your argument is ineffective.

    Virtually any discussion will evoke some emotion in some people. If you make that the standard then basically all arguments, including yours, would be “appeal to emotion”.

    This statement you have made shows that you have no idea what is an appeal to emotions fallacy.

    “You are now trying to redefine the accepted definition of infanticide without any reasonable justification other than “it is close enough in time or in distance”.
    .
    No I am not. That doesn’t follow. Bogus.

    I have shown you the definition of infanticide tell me where is says that infanticide includes a few milimeters to what is already defined and\or a few seconds before what is defined.

    Show me in statutory law where it says that you may sing in the shower.

    The government does not legislate singing in the shower so this is non-sensical.

    Show me in the bill where it says she must meet a higher standard than simple assertion.

    It does not but I am not making that assertion. You are the one making an assertion that a woman can simply assert that her mental state would be impaired. Therefore you have the burden to prove that this assertion is true. Are you going to do that or are you dishonestly going to try and dodge like what you just did?

    “You are trying to expand the definition of infanticide beyond to what the law have already described without any justifications other than “it is close enough”.”

    No. Bogus. You are equivocating similar sounding words from different contexts.

    There have not been any other similar sounding words to infanticide that is used in this conversation and its been used in the same context all through out and that is in the context of killing an infant. Please show me the other similar sounding word to infanticide.

    Wrong on both counts.
    The quote was from the Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

    Oh so in this document that you also quote mined where you conveniently ignored the part where it says ” State has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of a woman”. Here is the whole statement:

    First, a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion before viability without undue interference by the state.
    Before viability, the state’s interests are not strong enough to support prohibition of abortion or the imposition of substantial obstacles to this right.

    Second, a state has the power to restrict abortions after fetal viability as long as the law contains exceptions for pregnancies that endanger the woman’s life or health.

    Third, a State has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of a woman and the life of a fetus that may become a child.

    The second point alone states that the a woman is allowed to have an abortion AFTER viability when the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life or health. There are no specifications as to how far along in the pregnancy it may be. As far as the document is concerned it can be a few seconds or a few millimeters short of what would be considered as infanticide.

    You are dishonestly cherry picking parts of a document to support your claim and ignoring the parts of the same document that contradicts it. Even more so, you are cherry picking from one sentence.

  293. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    buddyward says February 18, 2019 at 4:07 am
    .
    “.”What you say is a continuous string of equivocations, straw men, and red herring fallacies.
    Many posts back I used the expression “basically legalized infanticide”. Despite my further elaboration you insist on disregarding the relevant conditional, “basically”. That conditional establishes that statement to be figurative and not literal. You insist on characterizing it as literal reference to another statute. That is an inimical distortion. Straw man.”.”
    .
    “What in the world is a figurative infanticide?”
    .
    How could that be a reasonable or honest question? You took an adjective describing a statement and tried to apply it to one word in the statement.
    .
    Sometimes I think you are trolling me. But you seem to be putting more effort into this than the typical troll would.
    .
    Let me respond to you “question” using your style: I didn’t say “figurative infanticide”. You are misquoting me. That is a fallacy. Please show me where I said figurative infanticide.
    .
    “If you do not mean a literal infanticide then there is no offense being comitted.”
    .
    Wrong. Late term abortion (without one of the established exceptions being present) is prohibited in Virginia and most other states.
    .
    “You are trying to hide behind the word basically…”
    .
    See, there are these things called “adjectives”. People with linguistic skills use them to more precisely convey meaning. Just because you don’t understand the words doesn’t mean that people are hiding.
    .
    “It is simple logic, either it is infanticide or it is not.”
    .
    False dichotomy. (and equivocation and neglecting context)
    .
    “You literally misquoted yourself. That does not indicate that you are an expert on what you wrote. “
    .
    LOL.
    I’m not sure which quotes you are referring to. Show them and make your case that they were deceptive. Oh wait, that would just lead to the same equivocations and context shredding all over again. Never mind.
    .
    “In what different contexts would the definition of infanticide be different?”
    .
    There we have it. You are context blind. You are adjective (and adverb) blind. You don’t do nuance do you. You are trying to force a single word out of context into a black and white dichotomy.
    .
    To answer your question, the answer is at the head of my previous response. A normal person would be able to parse it.
    .
    I’m wondering whether you actually can’t parse it or if you are maybe faking it.
    .
    “I did not say that was your intent. I said the word invokes an emotional response rather than a logical one. Please show me where I asserted your intent.”
    .
    Dude, it’s right there in the record. This is a ludicrous equivocation. This is just another burden shifting red herring.
    .
    Here, let me respond using your style again here:
    On February 15 you, buddyward, said, “trying to restricts a person’s rights”. This evokes emotions in many people. You are using words to invoke an emotional response instead of logical ones. This is a fallacy called an appeal to emotions. Your argument is fallacious.
    .
    .
    “.”Show me in statutory law where it says that you may sing in the shower.”.”
    “The government does not legislate singing in the shower so this is non-sensical.”
    .
    Really? Are you messing me? Did you really miss the point that if something isn’t prohibited it is permitted? The government doesn’t and couldn’t possible enumerate everything that is permitted. It prohibits what needs to be prohibited. What isn’t prohibited is permitted.
    .
    “.”Show me in the bill where it says she must meet a higher standard than simple assertion.”.”
    “It does not…”
    .
    Boom. There it is.
    .
    “… but I am not making that assertion. You are the one making an assertion that a woman can simply assert that her mental state would be impaired. Therefore you have the burden to prove that this assertion is true.”
    .
    That’s insane. You are demanding I prove the very thing you admitted to. You admit there is no higher standard than simple assertion required and then you demand that I prove that she need not meet a higher standard than simple assertion. What you demand I prove is an convoluted restatement of what you admitted to. That’s insane. Are you knowingly doing this or do you not know better?
    .
    .
    “The second point alone states that the a woman is allowed to have an abortion AFTER viability when the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life or health. “
    .
    Right.
    .
    “There are no specifications as to how far along in the pregnancy it may be. As far as the document is concerned it can be a few seconds or a few millimeters short of what would be considered as infanticide.”
    .
    Right.
    .
    “You are dishonestly cherry picking parts of a document to support your claim and ignoring the parts of the same document that contradicts it. Even more so, you are cherry picking from one sentence.”
    .
    Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
    .
    OK, I don’t know why I bother but here we go. I warn you that there will be adjectives and adverbs plus multiple contexts below so you probably won’t be able to follow it. Maybe give it a try.
    .
    Tran’s bill would have gutted the standards and controls on the exceptions to late term abortions. It reduced the number of deciding physicians from three down to one. It struck out all of the specific qualifications as to what counts as a health impairment. It struck out the “substantially and irremediably” qualifications. Basically any and every case could qualify as an exception. In which case the bill would have actually eliminated protection for late term fetuses.
    .
    .
    Cheers.
    .

  294. buddyward says

    “What in the world is a figurative infanticide?”

    .
    How could that be a reasonable or honest question? You took an adjective describing a statement and tried to apply it to one word in the statement.

    Sometimes I think you are trolling me. But you seem to be putting more effort into this than the typical troll would.
    .
    Let me respond to you “question” using your style: I didn’t say “figurative infanticide”. You are misquoting me. That is a fallacy. Please show me where I said figurative infanticide.
    .

    .

    Your statement is “basically legalized infanticide” to which you say is figurative and not literal. What then is a figurative legalized infanticide? I do not have to put much effort in debunking your claims, you have made so much fallacious argument and illogical statements that those are easy to identify.

    “If you do not mean a literal infanticide then there is no offense being comitted.”

    .
    Wrong. Late term abortion (without one of the established exceptions being present) is prohibited in Virginia and most other states.

    So are you then claiming that you are saying the bill is allowing for literal infanticide?

    See, there are these things called “adjectives”. People with linguistic skills use them to more precisely convey meaning. Just because you don’t understand the words doesn’t mean that people are hiding.

    Using adjectives does not allow you to violate the logical absolutes. Adding basically to your statement does not excempt you from the law of non-contradiction.

    False dichotomy. (and equivocation and neglecting context)

    You do not know what a dichotomy is let alone what is a false dichotomy. Dichotomies are mutually exlcusives as in:

    An object is either a rock or not a rock.
    You either believe a god or some god exists or you do not believe a god or some god exist.
    An act is either infanticed or it is not infanticide.

    Examples of false dichotomies:

    An object is either a rock or a tree.
    You either believe a god or some god exists or you believe that we all just came from nothing.
    An act is either infanticide or merciful killing.

    You need to do more research in philosophy and logic because you are grossly failing in your understanding of the arguments.

    LOL.
    I’m not sure which quotes you are referring to. Show them and make your case that they were deceptive. Oh wait, that would just lead to the same equivocations and context shredding all over again. Never mind.

    .

    Just as I have expected, you are dishonestly ignoring my previous statement in order to just deny what was presented before. I will once again say it. You claim that you said:

    “basically infanticide”

    What you actually said was:

    “basically legalized infanticide”

    There we have it. You are context blind. You are adjective (and adverb) blind. You don’t do nuance do you. You are trying to force a single word out of context into a black and white dichotomy.

    I do logic and your use of an adjective is just a way to muddy the water so that you can try to avoid having to take an actual position on a statement you made. You are intentionally trying to be vague because you cannot be intellectually honest with your position. When someone tries to ask you to defend a position on infanticide you deflect and say that this is not your position but when you equivocate a late term abortion as being close to killing an infant you are taking the position that infanticide is being committed.

    To answer your question, the answer is at the head of my previous response. A normal person would be able to parse it. I’m wondering whether you actually can’t parse it or if you are maybe faking it.

    You still have not answered what are the two different contexts in which the word infanticide was used in this conversation where the meanings are different. You have not shown what other similar sounding word to infanticide have been used in this conversation. You are pointing at nothing in this conversation that supports what you said.

    “I did not say that was your intent. I said the word invokes an emotional response rather than a logical one. Please show me where I asserted your intent.”

    .
    Dude, it’s right there in the record. This is a ludicrous equivocation. This is just another burden shifting red herring.

    You are not showing me where I asserted your intent. All you are doing is trying to be vague and saying it is somewhere up there. There should not be any reason not to be able to copy and paste my statement where I said what your intent was. This is not shifting the burden of proof. You are the one that claimed that I asserted your intent. I am asking you to provide evidence for that claim. Again, this is a misunderstanding of the shifting the burden of proof fallacy. You really do not have any understanding of philosophy.

    Show me in the bill where it says she must meet a higher standard than simple assertion.

    “It does not…”
    .
    Boom. There it is.
    .
    “… but I am not making that assertion. You are the one making an assertion that a woman can simply assert that her mental state would be impaired. Therefore you have the burden to prove that this assertion is true.”
    .
    That’s insane. You are demanding I prove the very thing you admitted to. You admit there is no higher standard than simple assertion required and then you demand that I prove that she need not meet a higher standard than simple assertion. What you demand I prove is an convoluted restatement of what you admitted to. That’s insane. Are you knowingly doing this or do you not know better?

    Now this is a prime example of shifting the burden of proof. You are the one that claimed that a woman can simply assert that her mental state would be impaired. But instead of supporting that claim you are now asking me to support the claim that “A woman must meet a higher standard than simple assertion”. This is a claim I never made and all along you have not supported your claim that according to the bill a woman can simply assert that her mental stated would be impaired. Again a demonstration of your lack of knowledge of Philosophy.

    OK, I don’t know why I bother but here we go. I warn you that there will be adjectives and adverbs plus multiple contexts below so you probably won’t be able to follow it. Maybe give it a try.
    .
    Tran’s bill would have gutted the standards and controls on the exceptions to late term abortions. It reduced the number of deciding physicians from three down to one. It struck out all of the specific qualifications as to what counts as a health impairment. It struck out the “substantially and irremediably” qualifications. Basically any and every case could qualify as an exception. In which case the bill would have actually eliminated protection for late term fetuses.

    The current law allows for late term abortion which means anything past the 24 week mark, even if that means a few minutes before a live birth. Reducing the number of physicians from 3 to 1 does not change the current law against infanticide it simply means there are less physicians needed. Striking out the “substantially and irremediably” qualifications makes sense as the law currently does not provide any guidance as to what it means to “substantially and irremediably” impair the mental or physical health of a person.

  295. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    buddyward says February 20, 2019 at 1:45 pm
    .
    “Your statement is “basically legalized infanticide” to which you say is figurative and not literal. What then is a figurative legalized infanticide?”
    .
    You’re hopeless. I don’t know whether you are impaired or a troll but it doesn’t matter.
    .
    My responses stand. They show that I’ve already addressed your repetitive fallacies multiple times. More than I probably should have.
    .
    If there is anyone reading here that agrees with buddyward’s points please feel free to voice your agreement.
    .
    If there is anyone who agrees with buddyward and would like to continue his argument please feel free to do so.
    .
    Buddyward, if you can find another person who understands English and would like to continue your argument feel free to do so.
    .
    .
    Cheers.
    .

  296. buddyward says

    You’re hopeless. I don’t know whether you are impaired or a troll but it doesn’t matter.

    My responses stand. They show that I’ve already addressed your repetitive fallacies multiple times. More than I probably should have.
    .
    If there is anyone reading here that agrees with buddyward’s points please feel free to voice your agreement.
    .
    If there is anyone who agrees with buddyward and would like to continue his argument please feel free to do so.
    .
    Buddyward, if you can find another person who understands English and would like to continue your argument feel free to do so.

    You cannot justify what you claimed and so you are now resorting to ad hominem and running away. I have pointed out the fallacies in your arguments while you cannot even correctly identify a fallacy. You do not even know what is a false dichotomy nor do you have any grasp on the logical absolutes. You have accused me of making claims I did not make and yet you failed to provide evidence for that accusation.

    I do not need your permission to continue this conversation with another person since this blog is what allows me to do that and not you. I now understand why people in this blog refuse to engage with you because you are intellectually dishonest.

  297. suedoenimm3 says

    .
    buddyward says February 21, 2019 at 11:22 am
    .
    (repeating my words for context)
    “.”You’re hopeless. I don’t know whether you are impaired or a troll but it doesn’t matter.
    My responses stand. They show that I’ve already addressed your repetitive fallacies multiple times. More than I probably should have.
    .
    If there is anyone reading here that agrees with buddyward’s points please feel free to voice your agreement.
    .
    If there is anyone who agrees with buddyward and would like to continue his argument please feel free to do so.
    .
    Buddyward, if you can find another person who understands English and would like to continue your argument feel free to do so.”.”
    .
    .
    “You cannot justify what you claimed and so you are now resorting to ad hominem and running away.”
    .
    But aren’t you getting tired of this? We’re both saying more or less the same things over and over. We’re basically at an inpasse. (Sorry, I used the word ‘basically’ again.) If anyone else was following they probably lost interest long ago.
    .
    (My apology to Freethought Blogs for this thread which has become tedious. My thanks to Freethought Blogs for hosting and allowing this discussion.)
    .
    Aren’t you getting tired of winning (in your eyes)? In your view you have been trouncing me. So much winning. Aren’t you happy with that?
    .
    Aren’t you starting to feel a little foolish yourself for wasting so much time on a fool? I know I am.
    .
    “I do not need your permission to continue this conversation with another person…”
    .
    At first I thought that was another parsing error on your part but I can see how my last sentence could be interpreted that way. (Although I’ve still been wondering if English is your first language.) I will repeat my statements here with some extra clarification.
    .
    .
    If there is anyone reading here that agrees with buddyward’s points please feel free to voice your agreement.
    .
    If there is anyone who agrees with buddyward and would like to continue his argument [with me, in his stead] please feel free to do so.
    .
    Buddyward, if you can find another person who understands English and would like to continue your argument [with me, in your stead] feel free to do so.
    .
    .
    Cheers.
    .

  298. buddyward says

    But aren’t you getting tired of this? We’re both saying more or less the same things over and over. We’re basically at an inpasse. (Sorry, I used the word ‘basically’ again.) If anyone else was following they probably lost interest long ago.
    .
    (My apology to Freethought Blogs for this thread which has become tedious. My thanks to Freethought Blogs for hosting and allowing this discussion.)
    .
    Aren’t you getting tired of winning (in your eyes)? In your view you have been trouncing me. So much winning. Aren’t you happy with that?
    .
    Aren’t you starting to feel a little foolish yourself for wasting so much time on a fool? I know I am.
    .
    “I do not need your permission to continue this conversation with another person…”
    .
    At first I thought that was another parsing error on your part but I can see how my last sentence could be interpreted that way. (Although I’ve still been wondering if English is your first language.) I will repeat my statements here with some extra clarification.
    .
    .
    If there is anyone reading here that agrees with buddyward’s points please feel free to voice your agreement.
    .
    If there is anyone who agrees with buddyward and would like to continue his argument [with me, in his stead] please feel free to do so.
    .
    Buddyward, if you can find another person who understands English and would like to continue your argument [with me, in your stead] feel free to do so.

    Feigning humility while engaging in underhanded compliments is yet another way of demonstrating how dishonest you are. I could care less about winning, I am interested in the truth which is something you fail to recognize. Feel free to run away, come back when you have an understanding of logic.

  299. dontpanicdent says

    I have an uncanny feeling that “shiningone” is “oreoman1987” in actuality. The tone and style of argumentation seem identical.

    Regardless, it might just be proper to continue to ignore both rather than engaging, eh? Reading through the last bit of this last thread was almost as tortuous as previous ones.

    Blech!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *