Abortion is murder, or is it?

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry but that is a cop out. I did not ask the question from the perspective of God. I asked it from your perspective as a human. Did God commit murder or not? I am not asking how it is justified because he is God.

But Atheists believe there is no objective morality. So what perspective can a "human" acting only as a mere human have on those things? He can, perhaps, "feel" the rightness or wrongness of things, but is powerless to prove that the "feeling" amounts to anything. So from a "perspective as a human" no rational conclusion is possible, except that miscarriages can't be objectively "bad" at all.

You also ignored my first issue again: you're asking me to assume, with you, that God is responsible for the miscarriage. I denied that. You ignored that. What else can I say?

[sthitapragya]

I won't reply to this rant. You are just making accusations based on your unfounded conclusion of murder. If you want a fight, tell me. I will give you one. Otherwise, redraft this insulting an offensive post. It has more accusations that arguments.

Then defeat it. In fact, you can destroy my whole case instantly: I'll point out the central weak point to you. Just tell me at what point abortion tips over into murder. Show rationally that you are correct. And you will have defeated my argument utterly. I will graciously accept defeat.

Till the umbilical cord is severed and the baby breathes on its own, it is not human and therefore it is not murder.

[Immanuel Can]

Till the umbilical cord is severed and the baby breathes on its own, it is not human and therefore it is not murder.

Well, that's two criteria, not one: and problematically, they may occur at different times, separated by several seconds.

But now, prove that your chosen point is not merely arbitrary. What is the reason that the cord and the breath impart humanity to the infant?

[sthitapragya]

Sorry but that is a cop out. I did not ask the question from the perspective of God. I asked it from your perspective as a human. Did God commit murder or not? I am not asking how it is justified because he is God.

But Atheists believe there is no objective morality. So what perspective can a "human" acting only as a mere human have on those things? He can, perhaps, "feel" the rightness or wrongness of things, but is powerless to prove that the "feeling" amounts to anything. So from a "perspective as a human" no rational conclusion is possible, except that miscarriages can't be objectively "bad" at all.

You also ignored my first issue again: you're asking me to assume, with you, that God is responsible for the miscarriage. I denied that. You ignored that. What else can I say?

First of all, don't assume things about atheists. Atheists have only one thing in common. Lack of belief in God.

Also this whole argument would never have taken place if you guys did not object to a woman doing what she felt with her body. Because you raised an issue, we who are opposed to it have to defend her stand. I have no issues with abortion or miscarriages. But since you call abortion murder, I simply draw your attention to miscarriages to point out that God designed that baby to die. That is a deliberate act of murder.

How can God not be responsible if he designed the baby to die before it was born?

So if you object to abortions, because you love children so much, you at least owe it to yourself to ask God why he deliberately murders children. Otherwise, it just means that since you are stronger than a woman, you want to interfere with her rights and you are afraid to ask God the same thing because he is a lot stronger and scarier than you.

[uwot]

But Atheists believe there is no objective morality.

So does Immanuel Can. No point talking to him directly, because he is saving my soul by ignoring everything I post. Anyway, even assuming there is a god, his morality is not objective, it is his.

[Immanuel Can]

First of all, don't assume things about atheists. Atheists have only one thing in common. Lack of belief in God.

But lack of belief in objective morality is entailed in Atheism rationally, as they never tire of reminding me.

So yes, there are many irrational persons who are Atheists, and thus continue to act as though they both believe and don't believe in objective morality; and I'm thankful, since it makes some of them into nice people. But you can hardly fault me for pointing out, as so many of them point out to the inconsistent ones, that there is no way for an Atheist to justify any morality. Of course, an Atheist can practice it arbitrarily, but he can never prove he's in any sense "right" or "wrong" objectively.

If that has changed, and I missed the news,feel free to give me the Atheist-objectivist defence of morality.

I simply draw your attention to miscarriages to point out that God designed that baby to die. That is a deliberate act of murder.

Again, this allegation requires Determinism and a division between morality and God. It's simply not reflective of my worldview, and so I have no ability to respond to it. it looks irrational to me. You cannot "murder" if there is no morality.

So again, we need that Atheist-objectivist defence...

since you are stronger than a woman, you want to interfere with her rights

You haven't proved that a woman has any sort of "right" to terminate or murder (choose your term) her babies. You need to do that first, before your objection can have any teeth.

One cannot violate a right that doesn't exist. Show it does.

[sthitapragya]

I simply draw your attention to miscarriages to point out that God designed that baby to die. That is a deliberate act of murder.

Again, this allegation requires Determinism and a division between morality and God. It's simply not reflective of my worldview, and so I have no ability to respond to it. it looks irrational to me. You cannot "murder" if there is no morality.

In fact it does. You believe in intelligent design. You insist that disbelief in intelligent design is irrational. So you have to believe that God is completely involved in the design process. It stands to reason that this includes the design of every baby that dies in the womb. Which means that God deliberately designed the baby to die. Which mean there was intent to kill. Which means God committed murder. And you cannot claim there is no morality. You are the one who insists that abortion is murder.

[Immanuel Can]

In fact it does. You believe in intelligent design.

To my knowledge, you and I have never hashed out this issue. But I do believe in it, yes.

You insist that disbelief in intelligent design is irrational.

No. I insist that a good look at the evidence makes disbelief implausible. Science is inductive, not deductive. I've said this many times elsewhere.

So you have to believe that God is completely involved in the design process. It stands to reason that this includes the design of every baby that dies in the womb. Which means that God deliberately designed the baby to die.

I'll say again what I said before: unless I were a Determinist, I would not believe that God is the only genuine Agency of things that happen in the world. He could, indeed be the Designer but not the killer of a baby.

But humans and a natural order that are presently out of sync with the will of God would also be included in my worldview. So the answer might be as follows: babies die because of the malnourishment of their mothers, produced by the wickedness of men who hoard resources and deny medical care to the needy. Babies die because we live in a world that is sick, out of step with God, and needs redemption. And in this context, babies die because their mothers and the abortionists murder them for their convenience. All are true. That's empirical.

But unless you turn me into a Determinist, someone who believes that God (or, in the Atheist version, matter and energy) is the ONLY effective will in the universe, your dilemma is simply wrong. It's like asking me, "Since Tom killed Mildred, how long will it be before you lock up Henry?" It makes no sense, and would be unjust.

And you cannot claim there is no morality. You are the one who insists that abortion is murder.

I don't. I believe in objective morality, of course. I only claim that if one is an Atheist, one doesn't even believe in your question, let alone the answer. It can only offered facetiously, sarcastically and insincerely, since one could not possibly believe "murder" even objectively exists.

[sthitapragya]

In fact it does. You believe in intelligent design.

To my knowledge, you and I have never hashed out this issue. But I do believe in it, yes.

You insist that disbelief in intelligent design is irrational.

No. I insist that a good look at the evidence makes disbelief implausible. Science is inductive, not deductive. I've said this many times elsewhere.

So you have to believe that God is completely involved in the design process. It stands to reason that this includes the design of every baby that dies in the womb. Which means that God deliberately designed the baby to die.

I'll say again what I said before: unless I were a Determinist, I would not believe that God is the only genuine Agency of things that happen in the world. He could, indeed be the Designer but not the killer of a baby.

But humans and a natural order that are presently out of sync with the will of God would also be included in my worldview. So the answer might be as follows: babies die because of the malnourishment of their mothers, produced by the wickedness of men who hoard resources and deny medical care to the needy. Babies die because we live in a world that is sick, out of step with God, and needs redemption. And in this context, babies die because their mothers and the abortionists murder them for their convenience. All are true. That's empirical.

But unless you turn me into a Determinist, someone who believes that God (or, in the Atheist version, matter and energy) is the ONLY effective will in the universe, your dilemma is simply wrong. It's like asking me, "Since Tom killed Mildred, how long will it be before you lock up Henry?" It makes no sense, and would be unjust.

That is why I made it absolutely clear. This is not about babies. Miscarriages happen to fetuses inside the mother's womb. No abortion. No malnutrition. The fetus died due to some genetic condition. No doctor was involved. No hoarder was involved. The mother was a loving caring responsible woman who took good care of her body to ensure that the fetus got sufficient nutrition. Still died due to a genetic condition. Then did God commit murder or not?

[Immanuel Can]

Now, here's an interesting thing: you seem to suggest you don't believe in objective morality.

And yet, when I asked if what Kermit Gosnell was doing was "murder," you knew and answered in the affirmative.

You have also several times taken me to task for depriving people of "rights."

And presumably, you are arguing with me because you believe I am "wrong" to be against abortion.

Then you have been upset with me for being "insulting" (though it was not my intention), which suggests you think it is also "wrong" and that I should agree with you that it is...

And you've accused me of "making unfair assumptions" about Atheists...and so on.

Moreover, you clearly believe that anti-abortionists are "wrong," "bad" or possibly even "evil" if they insist on their view...especially in making it public policy.

It leads to this: What makes any of these things "wrong"?

You clearly believe that they are -- for otherwise, you would not have any basis on which to take me to task for any of them, and no justice in expecting me to agree.

So from where do you get your objective morality?

Well?

[Immanuel Can]

The mother was a loving caring responsible woman who took good care of her body to ensure that the fetus got sufficient nutrition. Still died due to a genetic condition.

What was the woman's name?

I'm being wry. I always give you a name, like "Tom" or "Henry" or "Mildred." I feel deprived of the necessary furnishings.

You're assuming genetics are Deterministic. But what I said earlier is that Christians view this world as not just out of step in regard to humanity itself, but to the entire environment in which they live -- its laws, principles and dynamics. We use the word "fallenness" to describe this total condition. And it includes genetics.

[sthitapragya]

Now, here's an interesting thing: you seem to suggest you don't believe in objective morality.

And yet, when I asked if what Kermit Gosnell was doing was "murder," you knew and answered in the affirmative.

You have also several times taken me to task for depriving people of "rights."

And presumably, you are arguing with me because you believe I am "wrong" to be against abortion.

Then you have been upset with me for being "insulting" (though it was not my intention), which suggests you think it is also "wrong" and that I should agree with you that it is...

And you've accused me of "making unfair assumptions" about Atheists...and so on.

Moreover, you clearly believe that anti-abortionists are "wrong," "bad" or possibly even "evil" if they insist on their view...especially in making it public policy.

It leads to this: What makes any of these things "wrong"?

You clearly believe that they are -- for otherwise, you would not have any basis on which to take me to task for any of them, and no justice in expecting me to agree.

So from where do you get your objective morality?

Well?

This a discussion for another thread. And FYI, my morality is still subjective. You really need to understand that what you decide for yourself is subjective and what you let something or someone else decide for you is objective morality. Mine is all subjective.

[sthitapragya]

The mother was a loving caring responsible woman who took good care of her body to ensure that the fetus got sufficient nutrition. Still died due to a genetic condition.

What was the woman's name?

Malti. So did God commit murder or not? There was no other cause of death of the fetus except some genetic condition.

[Immanuel Can]

This a discussion for another thread.

Not really. You made it "front and centre." This is a moral issue, and you've been using a ton of moral language without justifying any of it.

And FYI, my morality is still subjective. You really need to understand that what you decide for yourself is subjective and what you let something or someone else decide for you is objective morality. Mine is all subjective.

No, I believe you -- I just can't see what justification you use to make moral judgments of others, if you're a pure subjectivist. I don't even mind you doing it, and don't feel offence. But I can't see any reason in it on your own terms.

If your subjectivism is true, then any moral condemnation you make of me amounts to no more than "I don't like X," with "X" being a property about which no one but you is subjectively required to be concerned.

That's a hard way to argue a moral issue. You've broken your own sword -- and you need it in order to mount the battle.

[Immanuel Can]

Malti. So did God commit murder or not? There was no other cause of death of the fetus except some genetic condition.

Sorry...I redacted...see above.