The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Coercion

February 16, 2006 | 72 Comments

In response to one of my posts on crisis pregnancy clinics, Jill of Feministe left a comment here (#47) regarding what she views as unethical practices at the facilities. Last week I addressed her accusation of deceit by the CPCs. Today’s installment deals with her criticism of coercion:

If they want to have an abortion, and they’re walking into their doctor’s office, they don’t deserve to be accosted by anti-choicers. If they want to give birth, and they go to a CPC for help, that’s great. But you don’t see pro-choice activists standing outside CPCs yelling at the women going in that they’re ruining their lives — because the pro-choice movement believes that women are perfectly capable of making their own reproductive choices, without being lied to or infantilized.

I’ve worked with and known women who have made a variety of choices, including childbirth and abortion. I know women who, in the direst of straits, chose to give birth. It’s probably not the same choice that I would make in their situation, but I would never tell them that they’re doing the wrong thing — because they aren’t. I’ve also met women who have had abortions or who are planning to, and, even if they’re in situations where I think I would have chosen differently, I’m not them. Until I’ve walked the proverbial mile in their shoes, I can’t say anything.

I must repeat the only true difference between us on the abortion issue is that I believe the practice to be an unjustified killing from conception through birth, whereas you draw the line at six months. At that point, you believe elective abortion should be prohibited and that childbirth should be legal compelled. So the issue isn’t coercion at all. You accept the value of coercion, even by the state, to prevent moral evils. That is, in fact, the entire purpose of the criminal law.

Coercion isn’t a by itself a value; it’s just a method of achieving a particular end. Whether the coercion is good or bad depends entirely upon the end to which it’s employed. You wouldn’t argue that it’s bad to coerce a woman out of drowning her toddler, on the premise that coercion alone is a bad thing. You wouldn’t argue that even if you had walked literally around the Earth in the woman’s shoes.

Furthermore, what CPCs engage in isn’t even coercion. It’s moral persuasion, moral argument. They show women ultrasounds and videos and share their experiences and try to convince them that there are better alternatives to abortion. To say that women “don’t deserve” to be subjected to persuasion or arguments because they’ve formed a particular desire at a particular time is the emptiest of rhetoric. People are bombarded with such arguments from every direction and every medium regarding every decision they make, large and small. They form their opinions and change their opinions because of those arguments. Women who would never consider an abortion because they believe it to be immoral form that opinion after being influenced by family, friends, television, the internet and other sources. There is no principled distinction to be made between the decision of a woman not to abort made after watching TV or reading a blog, and the same decision made after talking to a CPC volunteer.

The real reason you object to CPCs spreading the exact same message available everywhere else has nothing to do with an objection to persuasion or coercion. You simply object to the message that abortion is wrong, because you don’t think it ever is wrong. You “would never tell them that they’re doing the wrong thing — because they aren’t.” And so you believe that any woman who objects to abortion on moral grounds is wrong and has been tricked and infantilized into reaching that conclusion. That being the case, there is no reason to single out CPC volunteers for their efforts. You should be equally offended by every effort, in every medium, to discourage women from having abortions.

You claim that pro-choicers don’t protest outside of CPCs because they believe that women “are perfectly capable of making their own reproductive choices, without being lied to or infantilized.” This assertion makes little sense, because your whole premise is that women who enter CPCs are lied to and infantilized. Your entire comment is a protest against women going into CPCs. Why you make a distinction between making the argument in a comment and “accosting” a women outside a CPC I don’t know. If your true objection is to coercion and misinformation, you should fight it at every opportunity wherever it may be found. Run up to the women at the clinic doors and tell them not be “fooled” into thinking that what they see on the ultrasound is anything more than a clump of cells. Or tell them it is like looking at a cloud, and they may see in it anything they want.

I squarely reject that view, of course, and that again is the real difference between us. Because I believe abortion is wrong, I see nothing wrong with protesting at an abortion clinic, and everything wrong with protesting at a CPC. I know that abortion ruins lives, the life taken and the life left behind. If you believe that CPCs ruin lives, get out your placards, gather your victims, and rally at their doorsteps. But if you truly “can’t saying anything” and wouldn’t dream of “coercing” a decision one way other the other, my advice to you is simple: shut up and stand aside. Because quite frankly, lady, you’re just in the way.

Comments

72 Responses to “Coercion”

  1. Anonymous
    February 16th, 2006 @ 10:55 pm

    Yes, RA, we get it. You think life begins at conception, so abortion is murder. And to prevent murder, you think anything short of another murder is acceptable. Congratulations on your moral consistency. Would you like a parade?
    I think your starting position is ridiculously short-sighted and immature, but I can admire your follow-through. And you are right to point out moral inconsistency in theists, as you often do.
    But your position (and follow-through) on abortion is completely divorced from atheism. So please, move it to another blog, so your readers can choose to tune in or not.

  2. Lucy Muff
    February 16th, 2006 @ 11:05 pm

    I wonders why you is anonymous? Is it be that you is knowing that you talk poo and so is too much of the shame to put name to silly sayings? Even Jesus, what is infinite in forgiveness, be laughing at your fool ways. Baby kill is worst thing to be doing, and them what can’t see this is on highway to hell. It not too late because Jesus is lord and will bum rush you hell show with big loveing if you only repent and change your evil ways. You got to change your evil ways if you wants to get to heaven, even retarded know this! Is you mad at RA because he is rite and you be rong? I thunk so. you is harpocrit because you likes the abortions but I bet you would no kill any baby you self. You be like meat eater what aint got it to kill no cows but still thinks it be cool to wear leather pants and eat big stakes. I pity the fool what is somewhat in this way.

    Jesus is Lord

  3. Mrs.BigHands
    February 17th, 2006 @ 12:24 am

    Allow me to be the first to congratulate Lucy Muff on her wonderful grammer and ability to form inteligent sentences. After seeing your atrocious display of brain power, I would be reluctant to pray for anything from your god. I might just end up like you with a dysfunctional mind and a very, very large ass. Thanks for showing us the light fatty.

  4. Lucy Muff
    February 17th, 2006 @ 12:29 am

    helo mr big hand, I wunder, is your hand as big as you mouth? My gramer is not the best but how is you at chinese? I thnk it is likely shit so stop being the arogant atheist poo face and show respeck unclever fool. I is having very good body and many tiimes peoples are liking it and asking ti have go on it, but I tells them no not till marry. But still they try. I wonder if you is using you big hands to pleasure you self in jerky way? you magic ball say all signs point to yeas.

    Jesus is Lord

  5. Mark
    February 17th, 2006 @ 5:42 am

    RA, this is your blog and you are entitled to post anything you want here, but I have to agree that abortion does not have a damn thing to do with atheism.

  6. PHLAF
    February 17th, 2006 @ 8:12 am

    I can’t really agree with your assertion that coercion is alright if the end to which it is applied is good. There is a difference between persuasive argument and coercion. Coercion is a selfish act – it disregards the humanity of the targeted individual. Coercion, as I understand it, is dishonest. Plus, I don’t believe the end justifies the means.

    Also, your example of using coercion to stop a woman from drowning her toddler doesn’t really apply to the kinds of coercion that have been used to get women to either abort, give birth, or “give” their babies up for adoption. If you’re in any position to coerce a psychotic mother who is about to drown her toddler, you could just as easily grab the toddler and go call 911. A psychotic person isn’t going to respond to rational persuasion, and they tend to act in secrecy and isolation anyway, so it’s unlikely you’d even be in a position to know that they’re about to do something as tragic as drowning their children.

    Most CPCs are probably on the up and up, but there have been documented cases where CPC workers have lied to women about pregnancy tests and given them false information. That’s wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

  7. Erik
    February 17th, 2006 @ 8:31 am

    The real reason this CPC stuff is a problem is that we’re talking about a legal medical procedure. If I have appendicitis, I don’t expect my doctor to say “Well, I’m a Christian scientist, so I strongly urge you to do absolutely nothing about your condition. It’s the right thing to do.”

    When you get pulled over for DWI, and hire a lawyer, you don’t expect the lawyer to say “I’ll represent you, but you’re an immoral bastard and deserve the full punishment of the law.”

    I don’t expect a clinic to be a fucking moralizing center, either. If there is strong evidence that women who ultimately choose not to abort have fewer mental and/or physical problems later, then I would be interested to hear the benefits of the alternatives. But the morality of it? Get a fucking grip.

  8. Jody Tresidder
    February 17th, 2006 @ 8:38 am

    RA,
    What a vile mandate you loose upon your world with the statement: “Coercion isn’t a by itself a value; it’s just a method of achieving a particular end. Whether the coercion is good or bad depends entirely upon the end to which it’s employed.”

    That’s precisely the carte blanche justification every nutter looks for.
    Interesting, too, how you’ve danced around precisely this point before, affecting lukewarm disapproval of lying to women to force them not to abort.
    Now, at least, you’ve come clean.
    Even if it leaves you with dirty hands.

  9. The No God Boy
    February 17th, 2006 @ 10:56 am

    I was clipping my fingernails today and managed (without being careful) to cut the skin. I cut off the damaged skin and wiped up the blood.

    Oh my god. Human tissue. I wondered now that it was separated from my body if the cells felt pain. Since technically they could reproduce I wondered should I stop what I was doing, grab the nearest woman, implant them in her and see if I could save this precious life.

    Then I realized that the blood and skin, just like an ovum in a pregnancy is just a clump of cells. They don’t feel, think or look up at me and ask “are you going to save me”.

    Then, just like my wife and I did with a couple of unwanted pregnancys, I discarded them.

  10. The No God Boy
    February 17th, 2006 @ 11:00 am

    One las comment:

    It’s sad to see the RA reveal himself as a rabid anti-abortion nut. Just as the religious seek to foist their views on others the RA is not content to hold his views in silence. He must propogate them.

    If abortion is not for you, don’t have one. But stop looking into the lives of others and supposing to tell them what they can and can not do with their own bodies.

  11. PHLAF
    February 17th, 2006 @ 11:22 am

    Well, why do people have to hold their views in silence? That doesn’t even make sense. You sure as heck didn’t hold your view in silence – why should the RA?

  12. The No God Boy
    February 17th, 2006 @ 11:41 am

    I mean from an activist perspective. It’s one thing to hold the view in silence (of action) and quite another to try to foist it on others. I am an athiest but hold the view in silence – by that I mean I don’t go around trying to force christians to stop believeing.

  13. PHLAF
    February 17th, 2006 @ 11:53 am

    Ah – so you’re anti-activist…? ;-)

  14. benjamin
    February 17th, 2006 @ 11:55 am

    No Good Boy, no matter the nutrients available, or the environment (temperature, humidty, etc) it’s placed in, your damaged skin will never develop into anything more. The same is true of a sperm, and the same is true of an egg. The same is not true of a fetus, and the same is not true of you. You may yet develop into a fully functional, thoughtful, moral member of society.

  15. Viole
    February 17th, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

    RA,

    I’ve been here for a while. I suspect you know me, or at least the online version of me, fairly well. You’ll know, then, that profanity is not something I often use to express myself.

    I say this, because I want you to understand the sentiments behind me telling you to go fuck yourself.

  16. Lily
    February 17th, 2006 @ 12:05 pm

    RA:
    I have to agree with Jody that defining coercion as morally neutral is inherently wrong. Persuasion and coercion might overlap but they do not need to and should not.

    Having said that I have to ask Erik, if he is serious. What does legality have to do with morality? They should overlap but don’t always. Nor is the fact that abortion is a “medical” procedure to the point. The analogy is not to appendicitis but to other conditions that may legitimately be treated in several or many different ways. It is always (well, 99% of the time) reasonable to seek a 2nd opinion. One gathers as much information as one can and then one makes a decision.

    One of the pieces of information one ought to gather is the mortality rate of legal abortion. I find it alarming that abortion clinics receive so little oversight and that so many of its practitioners have killed with impunity. You can check out some of the horror stories at Real Choice (http://realchoice.blogspot.com/). Scroll past the current posts to “Cemetery of Choice” for an eye-opening review.

    As you can tell from the name, this is definitely a pro-life blog. But the blogger goes the extra mile to document everything, knowing as she does, that the pro abortion types will accuse her of lying, exaggerating, etc.

  17. simbol
    February 17th, 2006 @ 12:45 pm

    “Whether the coercion is good or bad depends entirely upon the end to which it’s employed.”

    An since the good or bad of the end depends entirely in my moral values, and I think that urban life corrupts people, there is not any wrong sending all of them to the countryside.

    Pol Pot

    Is tricky to use the example of the mother drowning her toddler. In this case, there is widely accepted means and ends. I don’t think there is a significant number of people who desagreee with saving the child even at the price of coercing the mother. But in the case under examination, which at the end is abortion, there is a wide disagreement, sir. See de polls.

  18. Choobus
    February 17th, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

    Abortion again? yawn.
    how can anyone who has had the pleasure of conversing with lily of SBW still be against abortion?

  19. Q the Enchanter
    February 17th, 2006 @ 12:55 pm

    I think TRA’s position on abortion is pretty problematic, but I don’t understand the argument that abortion has “nothing to do with atheism.” As a matter of pure logic, of course, it might be the case that the two issues are distinct. But as a matter history, it would be crazy to ignore the role religion has played in conditioning cultural resposes to abortion; to pretend that atheism is irrelevant to the abortion debate in such a cultural milieu seems incredibly myopic.

  20. David Kingston
    February 17th, 2006 @ 1:17 pm

    I rebuke all of you in the name of the Lord. A woman who has an abortion is clearly a murderer, as is a doctor who gives abortions. If you people do not repent of supressing the truth, hellfire is waiting.

    David Kingston
    dkingston@vt.edu

  21. Choobus
    February 17th, 2006 @ 1:21 pm

    kingston (lucy muff?) you can suck my fat heathen cock, and then save the spunk in case Jesus wants it for some IVF in heaven you fucking idiot.

  22. David Kingston
    February 17th, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

    The word of God also teaches that women are to be subservient to men. Feminists need to find God, get married and submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-23). God has appointed their role to be caretakers, not political activists. The role of leadership belongs to men alone (1Tim 2:11-15).

    Maybe all the madness about pro-choice and a woman’s supposed “right” to her body will end when women return to their proper place in God’s plan.

  23. Thorngod
    February 17th, 2006 @ 2:42 pm

    That’s tellin’ ‘em, Kingston. A woman’s place is in the stove. It’s time we men reasserted our patriachal rights. You’ve reinspired me, and I’m going to slaughter a fatted calf this very evening and burn it on my front lawn as a sacrifice to WHYH. Then I’m going to lay down the law to all four of my wives and my sons.

  24. Erik
    February 17th, 2006 @ 2:51 pm

    Lily,

    That abortion is currently a legal medical procedure is exactly the point. Each medical condition may have alternatives to treatment. That is obvious and the doctor’s role is to, in part, advise you as to the options that are within the bounds of the doctor’s oath. But that role does not, IMHO, extend to the doctor telling you what the moral choice is among those options. Not having the procedure is, of course, an option, and I agree that a doctor would be performing his or her duties by informing a patient what the results are likely to be in either case.

    If there is a medical reason to prefer one option over the other, that’s fine. What I don’t expect is for the doctor to push one option over another for moral reasons. I don’t go to the doctor for a sermon.

  25. Thorngod
    February 17th, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

    WHYH is not a different god, DK. I unintentionally transposed the letters, mean YHWH. I occasionally do that sort of thing. I just have to hope I don’t forget and sacrifice my youngest son tonight instead of a calf.

  26. Jahrta
    February 17th, 2006 @ 3:43 pm

    David

    It is my immense pleasure to let you know that you are an assclown of the highest order.

    I’d sooner spend a month with Lily or SBW than spend a second in your company.

    You’re the kind of booger people avoid at parties.

  27. The No God Boy
    February 17th, 2006 @ 3:53 pm

    Kingston, (thats David G. I. Kingston) sounds like quite a guy.

    You can find his picture here: http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/ images/David_Kingston.jpg

    Assuming this is the same guy he must be quite a scientist. Apparently he is also an elder at his church – the Blacksburg Christian Fellowship.

    He has a nice photo here: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/vahist/03VT/screen/03UR0371.jpg (How did I know he would be wearing a bow tie?)

    You can read some bo here: http://www.kingston.chem.vt.edu/index.html

    His phone number is: 540-231-6570

    I think we should call him up as ask about some if his cutting edge experiments in divinely inspired chemistry.

    What a moron.

  28. Kate
    February 17th, 2006 @ 4:09 pm

    AAAAGHHHH!! My eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. The No God Boy
    February 17th, 2006 @ 4:12 pm

    The only thing I can guess is that the “G. I.” stands for gum infection.

    What a hypocrite.

    D

  30. Jody Tresidder
    February 17th, 2006 @ 4:27 pm

    Good GRIEF – his picture – absolutely brilliant!!! Thanks…

  31. PHLAF
    February 17th, 2006 @ 4:40 pm

    Oh, my! How…well…how skin-crawlingly awful! Please, for the love of little green apples, tell me there is no Mrs. David Kingston…the poor dear. Can you imagine? No, on further consideration, don’t imagine…there are some images you really don’t want burned in your head even for a second.

    I actually thought his posts were a joke at first. It’s actually pretty damned tragic that they’re not.

  32. Thorngod
    February 17th, 2006 @ 4:41 pm

    Perhaps we could persuade him to separate out the “accidents” from a flask of sacerdotal wine and let us know what remained.

  33. Kate
    February 17th, 2006 @ 4:43 pm

    PHLAF said: “Can you imagine? No, on further consideration, don’t imagine…there are some images you really don’t want burned in your head even for a second.”

    OW OW OW OW OW OW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too late!!!

    Damn you!!!

  34. Choobus
    February 17th, 2006 @ 4:48 pm

    he has an impressive bio, considering he is mentally retarded.
    PErhaps he bumped his head recently, or was giving a blow job and his companion was a little eager and went up into his brain and literally mindfucked him.

    Either way, he is clearly some sort of cunt, and his picture is total proof that he does in fact give blow jobs.

    That or a vindictive student has asumed his identity and if fucking with him.

    Either scenario is amusing to me.

  35. Oz
    February 17th, 2006 @ 5:04 pm

    Hey, Erik:

    What would a Christian Scientist (a vile misnomer if ever there was one) be doing as a doctor?

  36. twyg
    February 17th, 2006 @ 5:12 pm

    hehehe I love the wooden block letters above his monitor. He must forget who he is alot! I also like the fact that his tie matches his screensaver. what a tool. Hey, Kingston, is the “rebuke in the name of the lard” sposta do something? I think I felt a little tingle in my nether parts when I read it!

  37. CD
    February 17th, 2006 @ 5:16 pm

    I’ll join with others here in expressing my disappointment in finding that RA has such a, well, un-atheistic attitude to foetal tissue.

    You don’t usually see such an uncompromising position in people who don’t buy the ‘soul’ hypothesis. Unless you believe in that sort of mysticism, what conceivable qualitative change could take place at conception that turns a pair of morally neutral gametes into a magical cell with all the rights of – if not more than – an adult human?

    I’d expect a rationalist to have a rational basis for such a profound attitude, and I’d like to know more about RA’s. This stuff is important – adult lives are at risk.

    CD

  38. The No God Boy
    February 17th, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

    Here is a picture of the spouse of Professor God-Fearing Chemist.

    http://www.kingston.chem.vt.edu/pictures.html

    It is clear he has a fetish for older women. Perhaps that explains his love of the invisible diety. Life here shure pitched him a curve ball. All he can do is hope for a better beaker of goodies in the next life.

  39. Lily
    February 17th, 2006 @ 5:56 pm

    You don’t have any idea whether or not Dr. Kingston is actually sending these messages or, a disgruntled and failing student. Try to take the high road and leave off harassing him with e-mail and phone calls.

    Now, I have a message for him, just in case, and advise you to turn away. It will just offend you…

    David:
    Matthew 7:6. It makes no sense to come here and hit and run. If you spend any time here, you will see that there are (have been) Christians who have done a superb job of patiently explaining various teachings, correcting mistakes and outright nonsense– to no avail. People learn when they are ready to learn and not one minute sooner. Most here are comfortable in their beliefs.

    Hit and run denunciations, a la John the Baptist, might get you lots of hate e-mail and harassing phone calls but are unlikely to do anything more than confirm this lot in their worst prejudices.

    They don’t want their ears tickled… and you know what the Psalmist says about the type of person who says in his heart that there is no God… they abound here.

  40. PhalsePhrophet
    February 17th, 2006 @ 6:59 pm

    How refreshing, I have been rebuked. Not only rebuked, but rebuked in the name of the lord. As opposed to Satin, Santa, FSM, or some other imaginary superhero. I only wonder if it is really the chemistry professor from Virginia Tech, a godidiot impersonating him, the professor impersonating a godidiot, or just a godidiot impersonating a professor?
    To counter, I rebuke him in the name of Lucy Muff, Lily, and SBW.
    Lily, your right, I don’t want my ears tickled, but my feet (resisting vulgar urges here) could use a little love.

  41. Pascal's Wager
    February 17th, 2006 @ 9:44 pm

    RA,
    What a fantastic post. Why are your fellow anti-godders crucifying you for your stance on abortion- no pun intended? Why is it OK to abort a fetus lets say at, 5 months, but yet that same “clump of cells” as No God Boy so ignorantly states, is defined as a premature baby outside the womb when only separated from the uterus by 1 centimeter of tissue. It may though actually be a blessing to keep certain people’s genes from continuing ito populate the gene pool, due to the fact that some don’t understand that condoms or birth control pills are a more sanitary way of birth control than is abortion. It’s not that difficult to figure out how not to get pregnant once, much less two unwanted pregnancies. No God Boy, did you pay for the eradication of those unwanted pregnancies or was it the taxpayers of this country that provided for you and your wife’s birth control? I find it interesting how pro-lifers can be called anti-choice. Then I guess pro-choicers can also be termed anti-lifers, or maybe pro-genocide. One more tangent, teachers and educators often complain about the lack of federal or state funding for education, but since Roe v. Wade, approximately 45 million children at between $5,000 and $6,000 per student, per year have been eradicated in the name of “choice.” How many teaching jobs would have been saved if these discarded clumps of cells were allowed to be in our public schools? I don’t like to equate the loss of lives with jobs, but it is a realistic consequence of our actions as America.

  42. Pascal's Wager
    February 17th, 2006 @ 9:44 pm

    RA,
    What a fantastic post. Why are your fellow anti-godders crucifying you for your stance on abortion- no pun intended? Why is it OK to abort a fetus lets say at, 5 months, but yet that same “clump of cells” as No God Boy so ignorantly states, is defined as a premature baby outside the womb when only separated from the uterus by 1 centimeter of tissue. It may though actually be a blessing to keep certain people’s genes from continuing ito populate the gene pool, due to the fact that some don’t understand that condoms or birth control pills are a more sanitary way of birth control than is abortion. It’s not that difficult to figure out how not to get pregnant once, much less two unwanted pregnancies. No God Boy, did you pay for the eradication of those unwanted pregnancies or was it the taxpayers of this country that provided for you and your wife’s birth control? I find it interesting how pro-lifers can be called anti-choice. Then I guess pro-choicers can also be termed anti-lifers, or maybe pro-genocide. One more tangent, teachers and educators often complain about the lack of federal or state funding for education, but since Roe v. Wade, approximately 45 million children at between $5,000 and $6,000 per student, per year have been eradicated in the name of “choice.” How many teaching jobs would have been saved if these discarded clumps of cells were allowed to be in our public schools? I don’t like to equate the loss of lives with jobs, but it is a realistic consequence of our actions as America.

  43. Pascal's Wager
    February 17th, 2006 @ 9:44 pm

    RA,
    What a fantastic post. Why are your fellow anti-godders crucifying you for your stance on abortion- no pun intended? Why is it OK to abort a fetus lets say at, 5 months, but yet that same “clump of cells” as No God Boy so ignorantly states, is defined as a premature baby outside the womb when only separated from the uterus by 1 centimeter of tissue. It may though actually be a blessing to keep certain people’s genes from continuing ito populate the gene pool, due to the fact that some don’t understand that condoms or birth control pills are a more sanitary way of birth control than is abortion. It’s not that difficult to figure out how not to get pregnant once, much less two unwanted pregnancies. No God Boy, did you pay for the eradication of those unwanted pregnancies or was it the taxpayers of this country that provided for you and your wife’s birth control? I find it interesting how pro-lifers can be called anti-choice. Then I guess pro-choicers can also be termed anti-lifers, or maybe pro-genocide. One more tangent, teachers and educators often complain about the lack of federal or state funding for education, but since Roe v. Wade, approximately 45 million children at between $5,000 and $6,000 per student, per year have been eradicated in the name of “choice.” How many teaching jobs would have been saved if these discarded clumps of cells were allowed to be in our public schools? I don’t like to equate the loss of lives with jobs, but it is a realistic consequence of our actions as America.

  44. allonym
    February 18th, 2006 @ 12:17 am

    “The only thing I can guess is that the “G. I.” stands for gum infection.”

    I’m pretty sure it stands for GodIdiot. Yep, like 99% sure.

  45. Grotesqueticle
    February 18th, 2006 @ 1:22 am

    RA,

    Yeah, I know, everybody funny. Now you funny too.

  46. mb
    February 18th, 2006 @ 10:34 am

    Why not allow abortion up until 6 months *after* birth? Infantacide was once very common and a valid choice for many parents in difficult situations. A 6-month-old baby isn’t fully human yet, since the brain is in a early stage of development. An adult chimp is more developed than a 6-month-old human, but we can kill adult chimps for research. If the acceptability of abortion up to a certain point is based on biological development of the brain, then we need to look at the mental development of babies relative to nonhuman animals that we consider it acceptable to kill.

    Here’s a tie-in to atheism: if humans have a soul, then infantacide may free a deformed or brain-demaged baby’s soul from a life of pain and suffering. If human’s don’t have a soul, then maybe such an action is harder to accept, because you are robbing the baby of its one and only experience of existence.

  47. Richard
    February 18th, 2006 @ 12:55 pm

    I would think that Prof Kingston is being impersonated by a bitter student.

  48. David Kingston
    February 18th, 2006 @ 4:15 pm

    Your threats and insulting words have not effect on me. I know I will have the last laugh as I watch you burn in hell. I also know that I am right because God has led me to his truth. It is typical for children of the devil such as yourselves to react in anger when I shine the light of God’s word in your faces. You are only dodging and denying what you know deep down inside to be the truth, and deep down inside you know that I am right. All your heady and sophisticated arguments, which are coming from your twisted little hearts, will be shown for what they are on the Day of Judgment (1Cor 3:13). The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but you are only speaking the wisdom of the world which is foolishness in God’s sight (1Cor 1:19-21). Since you are so determined to suppress the truth I am surprised that there is not more applause on this blog for such perversions as homosexuality (Rom 1:18-27).

    I put my email address on my posts because I am not afraid of revealing my identity (which is more than I can say for you cowering heathen, who disparage others behind the saftey of anonymity). I know I have nothing to fear from sinners like yourselves.

    God loves you!
    David Kingston

  49. Choobus
    February 18th, 2006 @ 5:12 pm

    hey kingston, can you prove that you are not just any old asshole but the actual asshole kingston?

    Also, I am curious: doesbeiong an elderin your church give you automatic bumsex rights with underage boys, or do you have to work on some sort of anal quota system?

  50. THe No God Boy
    February 18th, 2006 @ 7:06 pm

    Paschal,

    I paid for the abortions myself. It was wonderful to have the choice. The alternative would likely have been a disaster for my family and the babies to be born. Of course I’m sure you’d be ok with that, telling yourself that was all some little gift from your god.

    Abortion must remain legal. The reality is that any other alternative is simply untenable socially. A woman has the right to determine what her body will and will not do. Period. If life is so special to you I ask you how many children you have adopted? Any disabled/special needs/retarded children in the bunch? Probably not.

    Additionally, I am now pretty certain Kingston is a fake. The guy in the pictures looks entirely too pompous to write the way that poster does.

  51. Mark
    February 18th, 2006 @ 7:21 pm

    I really don’t understand why a fertilized egg has some special moral status. It is just a fucking clump of cells in the earliest stages of pregnancy when most abortions take place. Sure, it’s a potential baby, but with advances in cloning any cell in my body could be a potential baby.

    Until birth, a fetus is a part of a woman’s body. Sure, late term abortions are gruesome, but to prohibit abortion is for the state to assume control of a woman’s body . That’s not acceptable. It’s that simple. Of course, RA is free to try to talk women out of having abortions if he wants. These spineless abortion supporters who are afraid women will get offended at some anti-abortion protest really get me upset. By all means, you should see what an aborted fetus looks like before you have an abortion, and hear the arguments pro and con. There may be a good moral argument against having an abortion at times, but never a good argument for making it illegal.

    The religious argument against legal abortion is especially absurd. Since aborted fetuses go straight to heaven, what’s the problem? I have to ask this, however. Are aborted fetuses reconstructed in heaven as fetuses, as children , as the adults they would have become, or what?

    I sure as heck don’t want my current body in heaven. I’d like to look 25, be a competitive body builder, have totally perfect teeth and a huge dick.

  52. SBW
    February 19th, 2006 @ 3:41 am

    ///Lily said: You don’t have any idea whether or not Dr. Kingston is actually sending these messages or, a disgruntled and failing student. Try to take the high road and leave off harassing him with e-mail and phone calls.////

    I agree. I seriously doubt a college professor would come and post his email or any other information. What type of person takes time to search for another persons personal information via the web and posts it on a site without their permission?

    The vast majority of people here either don’t have web pages or don’t want people here to know they have them. I suspect this site is where they get to allow their alter ego to act out his/her agressions.

  53. Paul
    February 19th, 2006 @ 12:21 pm

    Consider what the following must mean for the religious objections to abortion:

    “[R]esearch on human reproduction shows that the ‘moment of conception’ is not a moment at all. Sometimes several sperm penetrate the outer membrane of the egg, and it takes time for the egg to eject the extra chromosomes. What and where is the soul during this interval? . . . . Still, one might say that at whatever point . . . the new genome is formed, the specification of a unique new person has come into existence. The soul, by this reasoning, may be identified with the genome. But during the next few days, as the embryo’s cell being to divide, they can split into several embryos, which develop into identical twins, triplets, and so on. Do identical twins share a soul? . . . . Indeed, every cell in the growing embryo is capable, with the right manipulations, of becoming a new embryo that can grow into a child. Does a multicell embryo consist of one souls per cell, and if so, where do the other souls go when the cells lose that ability? And not only can an embryo become two people, but two embryos can become one person. Occasionally two fertilized eggs, which ordinarily would go on to become fraternal twins, merge into a single embryo that develops into a person who is a genetic chimera; some of her cells have one genome, others have another genome. Does her body house two souls?” From “The Blank Slate” by Steven Pinker

  54. ashli
    February 19th, 2006 @ 2:51 pm

    well-said.

  55. Choobus
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:03 am

    I was wondering who was the least intelligent: Lucy Muff, Lily, Ashlii or stupid black slut? You’re all cretins, obviously, but who has the edge?

  56. hermesten
    February 20th, 2006 @ 10:20 am

    Kingston: “I know I will have the last laugh as I watch you burn in hell. ”

    How typically “Christian” of you. Will Jesus be laughing too, or just you?

    Kingston: “I also know that I am right because God has led me to his truth. It is typical for children of the devil such as yourselves to react in anger when I shine the light of God’s word in your faces.”

    It’s hard not to feel pity for you though, since you’re obviously insane.

  57. hermesten
    February 20th, 2006 @ 10:52 am

    “The vast majority of people here either don’t have web pages or don’t want people here to know they have them.”

    Mmmmm. I wonder why that is? Mmmmmm. Maybe some of them have heard their “Christian” boss or coworkers frothing at the mouth about evil atheists or something? Maybe all the office screensavers that scroll “Jesus is Lord” lend the impression that, well, one just might not be treated fairly in the workplace? Or maybe some people just don’t want to listen to sermons, or be “saved” during the work day.

  58. Annie B.
    February 20th, 2006 @ 11:18 am

    “If abortion is not for you, don’t have one.”

    “…stop looking into the lives of others and supposing to tell them what they can and can not do with their own bodies…”

    “I really don’t understand why a fertilized egg has some special moral status. It is just a fucking clump of cells…”

    “Until birth, a fetus is a part of a woman’s body.”

    …and other naive, simplistic canards, blatant scientific errors, ad hominem attacks, language-fault put-downs and potty-mouth stomps on RA for thinking for himself. Guess many of your readers still don’t care a whit how they compare against The Harris Protocol.

    Ahh, RA, when will you ever learn? 8^) Your once-adoring groupies love to smack things down, rightly or wrongly so (it matters not, even if they fall so gullibly for such an obvious troll-in-Kingston’s-clothing), and now you’re one of those things they love to spew about. Surely, you see the error of your ways after being called (for perhaps the umpteenth time), “ridiculously short-sighted and immature, rabid, an assclown, a booger person” and told “go fuck yourself.”

    Loved both the posts on the lying and coercion. Well thought through and well argued. Atta boy! Would love to see Jill’s reply, but I doubt you’ll get a defensible one.

    Hello, to old “pals” hermesten et. al. Good luck trying to change RA’s mind back to being pro-abortion, pro-sperm-cell, anti-life. Best of luck to you all, in fact.

    Of course, he’ll never change your minds either, it seems.

  59. hermesten
    February 20th, 2006 @ 11:23 am

    “Good luck trying to change RA’s mind back to being pro-abortion, pro-sperm-cell, anti-life.”

    I don’t think many of us are arrogant enough to think we are going to change RA’s mind, or anyone else’s. If I thought I could change minds, I’d be posting on theist websites instead of an atheist one.

  60. Sean
    February 20th, 2006 @ 11:53 am

    I only read the first few comments, but that is all that is necessary because the responses are typical when RA posts an anti-abortion post. Either way, it’s his blog, which most people use to give their points of view on things, and his view on abortion is fair game. He has persuaded me me to be philosophically opposed to abortion, but as luck would have it, I have no problem being a hypocrite. I’ve been giving it much thought lately, and the fact is, intelligent people in this country are breeding themselves out of existence. Proportionately, we, and I say we because I think I’m at least above average intelligence, are constituting a lower percentage of the general population. I’ve always felt that people should have fewer kids because population growth is bad. Problem is, the people we need most to effectively run the country have fewer kids, while people who shouldn’t be allowed to operate a microwave have boat loads of kids, raising them to be about as intelligent as themselves. Is there any wonder why things are such a mess? Anything that reduces the number of stupid people in this world can’t be all that bad. Maybe we should promote more abortions and higher birth rates among more intelligent people, along with some how better educating the general population.

  61. jahrta
    February 20th, 2006 @ 1:43 pm

    yeah…the booger thing was clearly refering whoever was writing under the David Kingston name, whether or not that person was David Kingston himself.

    Ah, reading comprehension…ain’t it grand?

  62. Mary
    February 20th, 2006 @ 7:58 pm

    but to prohibit abortion is for the state to assume control of a woman’s body . That’s not acceptable. It’s that simple.

    I didn’t realize you were an anarchist.

    But you must be. By this definition, any law is assuming control of a person’s body, which is not acceptable, and just that simple in your eyes.

  63. SBW
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:24 am

    ///Choobus said: I was wondering who was the least intelligent: Lucy Muff, Lily, Ashlii or stupid black slut? You’re all cretins, obviously, but who has the edge?///

    My vote is for your mother, for not choosing to abort you. If only she had known……..

  64. jahrta
    February 21st, 2006 @ 10:03 am

    It wouldn’t be altogether unheard-of, Mary. Some atheists are anarchists, but anarchist doesn’t mean someone who favors chaos as much as someone who is anti-government.

  65. Rich
    February 21st, 2006 @ 1:45 pm

    I’m curious how you respond to what I think is the fundamental argument, that consciousness and personhood are a product of a complex brain, and therefore are not present until the brain has reached a stage of development sufficient to support them. This position seems to be highly motivated by evolution, in as much as it explains both the differences and the similarities between our species and others with different brains. In the limiting case, it seems obvious to me that a single cell, fertilized or not, is not a person, bearing in mind that genetic technology will soon allow any cell to develop into a person, given the proper stimulation and environment. The question then becomes: until what point of development is it “safe” to assume there is no person present? Obviously we should be very cautious on this point, but also obviously there needs to be a decision as to what that point is. I think science clearly supports six months of gestation as quite a prudent point. I also think that this biological explanation of consciousness is necessary for atheism; otherwise it leaves the door wide open to supernatural explanations. Thanks for your consideration, as I’m sure you have addressed these questions before.

  66. Choobus
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:13 pm

    Stupid black clown said

    “///Choobus said: I was wondering who was the least intelligent: Lucy Muff, Lily, Ashlii or stupid black slut? You’re all cretins, obviously, but who has the edge?///

    My vote is for your mother, for not choosing to abort you. If only she had known……..”

    So, am I to understand that you are now in favour of selec ted abortion? Furthermore, your post implies that you have some sort of personal criteria as to whom it is that should be a target of abortion.

    In other words, you are proposing a eugenics program. Can you back this up, or is it simply more lies? Even if you claim to be joking this is still a bit much since you promote yourself on the stance of being against abortion. Yet you don’t mind joking about it. Do you also enjoy jokes about niggers? How about the forthcoming holocaust cartoons Iran is preparing? Have you moved your cathy strips off the fridge to make room for these upcoming comedy gems? Do you agree that god hates fags?

    I must thank you spazmillia for this insight into your true nature.

  67. jahrta
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:52 pm

    Choobus

    Clearly, Jamilla is pro-abortion when it comes to people who disagree with her. We usually respond in kind, although I maintain that my favorite rejoinder, namely that “she is a wad that should have been swallowed” should not offend those in the anti-abortion camp, as spooge guzzling is not a form of abortion, or really even birth control.

    And furthermore it shouldn’t come as any surprise that Jamilla like to joke around on here, even when it comes to serious issues. What else would you expect from someone who guest posts that she’s “considering” becoming a christian (because her heart told her to, apparently. That’s always a great reason to throw logic to the wind and decide to base every decision of your life on the supposed teachings of a fabled person who may or may not have existed 2,000 years ago) two weeks prior to becoming the female black equivalent of Jerry Falwell?

  68. Choobus
    February 21st, 2006 @ 9:34 pm

    Jahrta,

    the thing is, I suspect that the wad containing what ended up as spazmilla would have choked any but the most star-jonesian of cocksuckers.

  69. SBW
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 5:44 pm

    ///jahrta said: Clearly, Jamilla is pro-abortion when it comes to people who disagree with her. We usually respond in kind, although I maintain that my favorite rejoinder, namely that “she is a wad that should have been swallowed” should not offend those in the anti-abortion camp, as spooge guzzling is not a form of abortion, or really even birth control.////

    I’m pro-life. But I do admit that there are some people, such as yourself and Choobus that cause me to reconsider my position every so often.

    ///And furthermore it shouldn’t come as any surprise that Jamilla like to joke around on here, even when it comes to serious issues. What else would you expect from someone who guest posts that she’s “considering” becoming a christian (because her heart told her to, apparently. That’s always a great reason to throw logic to the wind and decide to base every decision of your life on the supposed teachings of a fabled person who may or may not have existed 2,000 years ago) two weeks prior to becoming the female black equivalent of Jerry Falwell?///

    Jerry Falwell? I’m flattered that you dislike me that much. It means I’ve struck a chord.

    ////Choobus said: Jahrta, the thing is, I suspect that the wad containing what ended up as spazmilla would have choked any but the most star-jonesian of cocksuckers.///

    I guess this means that it would be an act only you could accomplish.

  70. Choobus
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 7:06 pm

    spazmilla, we know you’re an idiot, why do you go out of your way to reinfoce this?

    In any case, phoney christian hypocrite, I thought you were getting contaminated by people here and were planning to fuck off? Why haven’t you fucked off yet? Why spazmilla, why?

  71. jenna
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 11:46 pm

    If you don’t believe in GOD you will not know that ABORTION IS WRONG!!! MAN DOES NOT CHOOSE WHEN HE WANTS TO HAVE A BABY WOMEN DOES NOT CHOOSE WHEN SHE WANTS TO HAVE A BABY……..GOD AND ONLY GOD CHOOSES THAT !!!! THE SECOND THAT BABY IS GIVIN LIFE BY JESUS THAT BABY IS A REAL LIFE, BREATHING, THINKING, HUMAN!!! RATHER IT BE THE NIGHT IT IS CONCIVED, 3 SECS OLD OR 6 MONTHS OLD HE/SHE IS A PERSON!! “NO GOD BOY” HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH AWFUL THINGS!! I WILL PRAY FOR YOU TONIGHT! AND SURE YOU CAN COME BACK AND CUSS ME CALL ME EVERY NAME IN THE BOOK BUT THAT WILL NOT HURT ME IN ANY WAY, IT WILL ONLY MAKE ME PRAY HADER. p.s. ( it does not make any of you look any better to come on here and hoop and hollar and cuss and sream…….IT DOES NOTHING AT ALL) *** And to *lucky muff* don’t worry about what they say just keep doing what you know is right!!! GOD DIED FOR YOU AND IS YOUR FATHER RATHER YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT OR NOT! THROUGH ALL THESE AWFUL THINGS YOU SAY HE IS A LOVING AND FORGIVING ANG AND WILL FORGIVE YOU FOR ALL YOU DO AND SAY! NOW THATS A FATHER AND WHAT A GREAT GOD HE TRULY IS!!

  72. jahrta
    February 24th, 2006 @ 3:36 pm

    Jenna

    Did you at least get a free toaster out of the deal when you handed over your brain, you stupid cunt?

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links