The Trinity

This will be a bit of a quickie where I just throw three little thoughts out there.

  1. The Atheist Experience is (back)!
  2. Pro Lifers suck.
  3. Bots suck.
1: I did not email them after all, but left a comment on their blog about not being able to view the live stream in Sweden, I don’t know if they fixed it themselves, or if it was ustream or God, but the fact is, I was able to watch the show last night. Thank you, whoever fixed the problem.

2: Abortion was one of the main topics on last night’s episode and one thing that was not mentioned but is my pet peeve when it comes to pro-lifers is that they usually claim that the debate is about our right to murder human babies, completely ignoring the fact that most pro-choicers support abortion simply because we do not believe that an early fetus is a person. Late term abortions are another story but before a fetus has developed cognitive thought I do not consider it a person and as such it cannot be murdered, you cannot murder a person who does not exist. When they start talking about “possible life” we get into a very tricky discussion, are we to protect conceptual people? Someone who might have been if things had worked out differently? That would kind of mean that you would be guilty of abortion every time you turned down an offer for sex, or even met a member of the opposite gender and did not do everything in your power in order to score. So Pro Lifers, before we can have a discussion about abortion, you need to get the topic straight, we do not support murder because we do not believe a person exists until it is thinking.

3: Bots have started spamming my comments section, there have only been 2 offences so far, but if it continues I may have to implement a bot-blocker, sorry to anyone who dislikes these things, but spam-bots really do annoy me.

3 Responses to The Trinity

  • Deus says:

    I started to write a reply yesterday, but I realized that I had quite a bit to say on the subject so I gave up. Today I start again by dividing my comment into bits thus hoping that I will be able to say everything I wanted on the subject – and that is your second point – about Abortion.

    Today’s comment will be quite short and just a remark on the “climate” when it comes to public debates about abortions. It makes me cry – seriously just by claiming to be “pro life” or “pro choice” the debate have lost focus – it’s no longer about the question (I try to paraphrase it so it’s neutral for both positions); Is Abortion always wrong, and if not, when ought we allow it? It’s about showing everyone else that the opposition is “Against life” or “Against Choice” – and that’s just a silly notion.

    That’s it for today, might seem silly but that’s how the public debate generally looks to me and thus I generally don’t bother to involve my self – but tomorrow (or at least in some coming day) I will try to pinpoint some problems in your reasoning in this post, as well as make some suggestions that might help in thinking about abortion. Pardon my French (or English).

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      Thanks for the comment! Though I am not sure you completely understood what I meant… The pro-abortion points I listed in the article were meant to illustrate the flaws in the reasoning of many who call themselves “Pro Life”.
      The popular pro-life crowd I am referring to, I.E. the ones that tend to protest around abortion clinics and have a good time harassing visiting women during a very stressful time of their lives. They tend to refer to anyone not in their group (and yes, they end tend to apply this to people who are only in favor of abortion in cases of incest and rape. If you think there is any case at all where abortion should be legal you cannot be one of them) as being in favor of the murder of babies.

      Apart from being horribly offensive, this is also dishonest and, of course, completely incorrect. As mentioned in the text, embryos do not automatically quialify as people.

      I know there are many different shades of opnions on the issue, but when I talk about pro-lifers I am talking about the ones I just described, the ones who proudly flaunt their hatred towards women and demand that all abortions should be banned, some have even suggested at penalty of death – not just for legal abortions, but even for miscarriages where someone might suspect that it was done on purpose, and, EVEN in cases where a doctor is certain that continued pregnancy will cause the death of both mother and child.

      Try to defend those people.

      Damn, even Nixon said that abortion might have a place in rare occasions, such as incest, rape and… mixed race couples.. For some reason people seem to keep that last one a secret.

      • Deus says:

        Thanks for your clarification. As you will see in coming posts (jet to be written) I did not misunderstand you as much as you might think. My point with the first post was to say 1) I do not have the energy to say everything I could/want to do in one post so this is the first 2) When it comes to general debates, it’s mostly about what side that screams the loudest – its more “rhetoric’s” than sound arguments. Ok this time I made a more generalized statement since I’m talking about debates in general and not only the abortion debate but I think the statement is at least partially true. I agree that those “Pro-lifers” you describes are horribly offensive, maybe dishonest and completely incorrect (but in my next post I will show that they’re not incorrect on the grounds you claim though and that your argument is as misguided as you claim theirs to be but more on that later :O).
        This second point was more to say something like “I’m against both life and choice”… or not since I don’t think that it’s fair to claim the debate about abortion is to be understood purely in one of those notions. If one does… as most people do… one generally misses to see some of the important notions that both sides claim (and others claimed by people that do not think the debate should be about “freedom of choice vs. sanctity of life”.
        My first post was not to claim anything about you as a person (I don’t think that is that interesting if the question is “Is Abortion always wrong, and if not, when ought we to allow it?” – do not take me to say that your opinion isn’t interesting, it is). Neither was it a claim about your argument in general – I did not mean to say that you as a “pro choicer” (if that’s how you see yourself – but I guess that conclusion isn’t fair if I’m supposed to live up to my own standards) was a “pie tosser” like the worst pro choicer are. Rather it was just to state my view of the public debate.
        Ah, well – hopefully it becomes clearer with my coming posts – my intention (at least now) is a series of replies – one (probably the first) regarding your argument – as I mentioned above I think it is as misguided as you claim “pro lifers” argument to be. In the second I’ll try to show that both sides are misguided and suggest another view – that probably requires a third post to clarify what that view implies and in that post I will also make some suggestions on how to “move things forward”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>