The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Aborted foetuses. Please let's not stoop to the weasel words level of language misuse.

If we are going to be biologically honest and stop hiding evil behind euphemisms then the proper term is 'human being'.

You're right! The mother is a human being, with the absolute right under American law to medical privacy under the First Amendment, and that happens to include the concept of medical privacy, which most Americans find quite dear, and that concept includes the right to control her own body-- including what is allowed to feed off of her uterine wall. Or isn't.

Fetuses, or whatever you wish to call it (in non-medical terms?), are on that list.

We cannot force citizens to unwillingly give up a kidney, at risk to their own life, even if they caused kidney failure in another person and that other person will die without the first individual's kidney. It's unthinkable, under law, because they have bodily integrity. You may think that the person who caused the kidney failure in their friend is a dick for being unwilling to risk his life to save the one who lost both kidneys because of him, but he has that right to refuse, under every concept of law and personal integrity/medical privacy we understand.

Asking a woman to involuntarily risk childbirth or C-section is not one shred different. The risks she takes with her own body, and what she does with it, are entirely hers. There are no ifs, ands, or buts after that sentence.

If we are to say that women are people, then that must necessarily include the bodily integrity concept. You can religiously frown on the practice of birth control, of women being something other than breeders, for that is your right. But knock it off with pushing your religious objection to abortion, in an artificial "we like life!" plea, as an agenda.

The funny thing is, though, your Bible is in no way against abortion. I don't know where y'all get that idea. I really don't. It's all "well if you read it this  way..." but it never says abortion is wrong. In fact, it strongly suggests in some places that God is totally okay with it-- see in Numbers chapter 5, where it appears there is a recipe for inducing a forced miscarriage (read: abortion) in a woman who has been suspected of being unfaithful while her husband was away. (Verses 11-31.)

But again, regardless of whether your Holy Book™ is against the practice, it is irrelevant, because our laws are secular and must remain indifferent to and unbiased toward religious ideologies. Oh, and that whole pesky Bill of Rights which seems to strongly imply that citizens (yes, folks, even women!) have all their rights, all the time.

---

I didn't know that there was an objective standard for heroic action.

I also made this same point. PT is demonstrating the problem with making value judgments from the perspective of ontological naturalism. Professing 'secular' values is all well and good so long as secularists recognize that they acknowledge that those values are really just cultural norms.In contrast to this, Judeo-Christian values are not culture specific because they point back to Nature and Nature's God.

What the fuck does this even mean? What problem?

Plagiarizing Deist concepts from the Declaration, transcribing them into the name of Jehovah, does not constitute an argument. Shame!

You don't just get to throw shit out there and pretend it's sage! All PT said is that Christians claim to have Absolute Truth™, and then by and large live just like the rest of us (for good and for bad), so they clearly make their own moral judgments despite all the rhetoric about "Nature and Nature's God" and the imaginary concept of an Ultimate Lawgiver.