The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

I Rest My Case

April 15, 2006 | 19 Comments

A prominent biologist agrees: PZ Myers, godless babykiller.

Comments

19 Responses to “I Rest My Case”

  1. PZ Myers
    April 15th, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

    Ho hum. No, that’s called sarcasm.

    Really, you need to work harder at making a case without distorting what others say.

  2. Choobus
    April 15th, 2006 @ 10:43 pm

    RA, you are making an mistake because on this matter your usually sharp mind is flaccid and ineffectual, and Myers has been and will continue to kick your arse. You might get some back up from the intellectual heavyweights SBW lily and maybe Lucy Muff and Chris Treborn, but I fear even these brilliant genius level cockmunchers will not be able to prevent you from talking bollocks.

  3. Jason
    April 15th, 2006 @ 10:46 pm

    Really, you need to work harder at making a case without distorting what others say.

    That’s a laughably hypocritical comment coming from someone like PZ, who makes it a daily habit to distort what others (you, Dawn, the entirety of Christians, etc.) say.

  4. Mookie
    April 16th, 2006 @ 1:13 am

    Some shitty posts lately, RA. And you have yet to answer some questions regarding legal punishments for those who receive and perform abortions. Does it bother you that you are wrong and everyone knows it but you?

  5. The No God Boy
    April 16th, 2006 @ 1:29 am

    I wish this guy WAS the RA. I think the place would be much more a fun athiest place to help others leave the church bullshit behind and also be less of a militant anti-choice site.

    Oh well. The site sounded good in the beginning at least.

    D

  6. Daniel Morgan
    April 16th, 2006 @ 6:37 am

    I just wanted to let you know that I sympathize a bit with you. I am a godless “conservative”, insofar as my politics are limited government and individual freedom [not an Objectivist, but I subscribe to egoism], and I consider late-term abortions unethical on the grounds of infliction of unnecesary pain (despite Derbyshire’s recent [4-15-06] research supporting the idea that pain doesn’t develop until after birth).

    When I tell other godless people how I feel about late-term abortions, they look at me as though I’m another mindless evangelical. The fanatic liberal community and the fanatic atheist community have the tendency to radically exclude diversity, although they preach that they do not, and preach that they embrace it.

    Now, one difference between yourself and me is that I do not support legislation banning third trimester abortions, with incest, rape, and medical cases excepted. I take it as an ethical issue, and believe that I have the moral high ground. I take the legal issue as complex, since the woman must have the right to do with her own body as she wishes. It’s a damn complex issue.

    Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I sympathize with your plight as the quasi-ostracized atheist. Maybe I spent too long in churches before losing faith, and learned too much about values, to place infliction of pain on a lower moral plane than that of convenience.

    Best regards,
    Daniel

  7. PZ Myers
    April 16th, 2006 @ 7:42 am

    A weblog is an expression of the author’s views — you can’t wish that someone were someone else. If it’s not a perfect match to what you want to see in a weblog, then there’s only one answer: start your own.

  8. Dada Saves
    April 16th, 2006 @ 8:08 am

    Choobus, as usual, is spot on. RA, I suppose by going after Myers its shows you’ve got stones, but when you go after him without anything resembling a coherent argument, you’re going to get your arse kicked — again and again. This is like watching Napolean Dynomite pick a fight with Mike Tyson.

    But unlike a lot of your blog readers, I do want you to continue to post on abortion. It’s great theater.

    So, when is that magic rubicon of personhood again?

  9. Tom
    April 16th, 2006 @ 11:57 am

    I appreciate the caution the pro-life side expresses in its views, but I deplore the tactic of misrepresenting the other side in support of those views. Even worse than that, however, is the mindset that rides piggyback on top of it which cherishes the life of a fetus yet fantasizes about, or actively pursues the violation of the health and well-being of adults who disagree with them. These two failures make it impossible for me to embrace the pro-life side.

    And DaveScott has it backwards when he states the following: “In PZ’s world there’s nothing underneath our subjective attempt to make sense out of it. At the end of the day it’s all an illusion.”

    Wrong. Only if the Christian god exists does our world, our morality, our joy and pain, our very life become an illusion. If God exists, then everything is arbitrary.

  10. Mister Swill
    April 16th, 2006 @ 2:51 pm

    Thank you, RA. I had been hoping you would give your case a rest.

  11. Alison
    April 16th, 2006 @ 10:10 pm

    Looks like RA’s got a little fundie in him

  12. Justin Knievel
    April 17th, 2006 @ 12:52 am

    Is no one else put off by PZ’s rationalization of infantcide based on the fact that it has happened before, for economical reasons? Many things have happened in the past that are detrimental to society, and some of them have been done for cash related purposes.

    And please, stop arguing that only religious folks are against abortion. Many fundies find the murder of adults to be wrong, does that mean that an atheist can’t rightly agree? What’s next, theft for monetary gain is alright because xians believe it wrong?

  13. Mister Swill
    April 17th, 2006 @ 1:39 am

    Justin, I’m a little put off by it, but I think what he’s getting at is that if you went to sub-saharan Africa and met a woman who had only been able to scrape together enough food for one of her two babies to survive and decided to let one die so the other was able to live, maybe you shouldn’t point your finger in her face and saying “you did a bad, bad thing, you immoral murderer!” And what about a harlequin baby? Would it be wrong to put him/her out of his/her misery or would it only be right to wait as the infant suffers and dies over an agonizing couple of weeks? None of this is endorsing infanticide, it’s just acknowledging that the answers aren’t always easy.

  14. Dada Saves
    April 17th, 2006 @ 8:37 am

    “Is no one else put off by PZ’s rationalization of infantcide based on the fact that it has happened before, for economical reasons?”

    I’m not put off by it all. As an evolutionary biologist, Myers knows that many species practice infanticide for economic (read: survival) reasons. Hominids evolved with the capacity to abandon newborn offspring when the babies presented an imminent threat to the survival of the clan. (A recent theory — to which Myers may or may not ascribe — suggests that human females are hardwired to make that call within moments of birth). Myers doesn’t then say, ‘Therefore, infanticide is okay and I encourage it,’ he’s just putting it into the context of evolution. Anway, I agree with him.

  15. Justin Knievel
    April 17th, 2006 @ 9:24 am

    I’m not claiming everything here is black and white. I just find it hard to rationally apply economically based infantcide in today’s society (industrialized), though I do agree with what PZ says about the current administration in the US doing things that will bring us closer to that.

    And as for those born without the ability to live, I have no desire to see them suffer. We don’t need to cause the end of a person’s life to see that they reach it peacefully. Although it might cost a few dollars more (easilly borrowed from ‘defense’ spending), our pharmeceutical prowess could make those “couple of weeks” completely painless.

    Dada Saves, PZ is saying “therefore, infantcide is okay…” even though he may not encourage it. The “magic rubicon of personhood” has obviously not been reached in your case.

  16. Tenspace
    April 17th, 2006 @ 10:31 am

    Dada, do you have a reference for that study? Sounds intriguing.

    I think both men offer valid points, but RA’s stance is, to me, undefensible if for no other reason than the fact that it does not offer solutions or alternatives to unwanted pregnancy.

    PZ’s position is more rational yet also ignores any mention of keeping females from getting pregnant in the fist place. Isn’t that the real root problem?

  17. Justin Knievel
    April 17th, 2006 @ 11:51 am

    rAmen, Ten; on both points.

  18. Drina
    April 17th, 2006 @ 9:15 pm

    [our pharmeceutical prowess could make those “couple of weeks” completely painless.]

    Completely painless, if completely unconcious.

  19. PZ Myers
    April 17th, 2006 @ 9:17 pm

    PZ’s position is more rational yet also ignores any mention of keeping females from getting pregnant in the fist place. Isn’t that the real root problem?

    I don’t ignore it, but I can’t possibly talk about everything in a single blog entry.

    I’m all for thorough sex education and ready and guiltless availability of birth control. That was actually the subject of my physiology lecture today: mechanisms of birth control action. It’s a shame that most kids don’t get that kind of thing until college, if that — it ought to be taught in elementary and middle school, when it would do some real good.

    Of course, we all know what happened to Jocelyn Elders when she dared to speak the plain truth about sexual activity.

  • 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