Friday, September 11, 2020

Will reversing Roe save fetuses? Maybe a couple.

Reversing Roe will NOT outlaw abortion, unless you use legal arguments that say that we can show that fetuses are persons in every relevant sense and that laws permitting abortion are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. That is what the argument would be if you follow pro-life logic out to its logical conclusion, but that is not the argument that people like Scalia use against Roe. They claim, not that the fetus's right to life was denied by Roe, but rather that a woman's right to privacy is not as absolute as Roe implies that it is. Hence, Scalia says, abortion should be decided by democratic choice. He may be right, but democratic choice in most states is going to be on the side of the pro-choice position, except in some Bible Belt states, and even there I doubt that such strong abortion laws are going last very long.

 I've also found it somewhat puzzling that since 1980, most of the Supreme Court Justices have been nominated by Republican Presidents who have been pro-life, and yet Roe is still going strong, supported in many cases by the decisions of those justices put there by Reagan, the Bushes, and Trump. Even Brett Kavanaugh, who did vote with the dissenters in the Louisiana case, tried to send it back to the lower courts to avoid having to rule on it, which is not the actions of someone eager to overturn Roe. And Roberts, well, he didn't even want to overturn precedent on a ruling he opposed a few months earlier, because of stare decisis. What chance is there that he would overturn Roe? I conclude that maybe if Roe had not happened, fetuses might have been saved, but overturning it now would save two fetuses in the State of Mississippi. The horse is out of the barn and not coming back.

I would add that the abortion rate DROPPED during both the Clinton and the Obama administrations. In real practice, Republicans do worse than Democrats at keeping fetuses from being aborted. 

78 comments:

Hal said...

Since Trump was elected, I’ve more than doubled my contributions to Planned Parenthood to ensure the protection of reproductive rights. Even if Roe is overturned there will still be a number of states that will provide that protection. Am also confident that there will be money to help women in other states to take advantage of that protection.

Legion of Logic said...

to ensure the protection of reproductive rights

Every now and then I will go look at images of how developed a fetus is at various points of its life. For example at 13 weeks it is very clearly a small human, with functioning organs, growing bones, unique fingerprints on the way, and vocal cords coming along.

I then will read detailed descriptions of exactly what happens to it during an abortion. For the fetus, abortion is gruesome no matter which method is used.

I usually read these descriptions of fetal deaths whenever someone claims they are protecting reproductive rights, because the fetal death methods are what they are donating money to protect.

At that age they can suck their thumbs.

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,

So then you would be ok with the morning after pill which prevents pregnancy?

bmiller said...

How ridiculous conservatives are. They keep thinking outlawing things will somehow stop certain behaviors. Be a progressive. Legalize pedophilia.

Legion of Logic said...

So then you would be ok with the morning after pill which prevents pregnancy?

Less than ideal but infinitely better than killing a 13 week old.

StardustyPsyche said...

OP
"Reversing Roe will NOT outlaw abortion,"
Yes it will, in many states that have anti abortion laws that are presently unenforceable due to Supreme Court rulings.

"woman's right to privacy is not as absolute as Roe implies that it is"
No such absolute right was established with Roe or subsequent rulings that replaced the trimester framework with the test of viability.

The right to life of the viable unborn supersedes the right to privacy of the mother. That is how the law stands in the USA today.

"In real practice, Republicans do worse than Democrats at keeping fetuses from being aborted. "
It's called birth control.

Legion of Logic said...

It's called birth control

And this is why I'm so irritated by Republicans and pro-life groups. They should be passing out birth control like Skittles to stop abortions.

bmiller said...

Most Evangelicals I know are for chastity. That may have something to do with it.

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,

Less than ideal but infinitely better than killing a 13 week old.

Thanks for the clarification.

And this is why I'm so irritated by Republicans and pro-life groups. They should be passing out birth control like Skittles to stop abortions.

Totally agree.

bmiller said...

The intentional killing of innocent human beings was considered OK in pagan times.

Aristotle thought the population of Athens should remain remain around 5400 and so abortion should be used to maintain that number. Rome had the pater familias who being the head of the family could allow or disallow an abortion both Greeks and Romans and could decide to kill their children by abandonment.

It's not surprising then, that as people abandon Christianity that they return to the ancient irrational and evil of the old pagan days.

Where do you fit in? HERE.

bmiller said...

It's all a matter of who you serve.

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

You might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high-degree thief
They may call you doctor or they may call you chief
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes you are
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

One Brow said...

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody


I prefer to serve the existent. My family, my students, researchers, humanity.

Victor Reppert said...

If the belief that abortion is morally unacceptable depends on the belief that Christianity is true, then you have a substantial argument AGAINST having laws against abortion. Church and state are separated in America, and laws that have a purely religious basis are considered problematic on that account. That is why Biden is pro-life on religious ground but pro-choice for the purposes of government.

ีuplay365 said...

Great article..I am looking so forward to your blogcomment and
I love your page on your post.. That is so pretty..
Sexy Casino

bmiller said...

Victor,

If the belief that abortion is morally unacceptable depends on the belief that Christianity is true, then you have a substantial argument AGAINST having laws against abortion.

I suppose a relativist pagan might consider the argument substantial. Lots of people think they have substantial arguments for pedophilia also.

bmiller said...

Like the people advertising 'Sexy Casino'.

Legion of Logic said...

That is why Biden is pro-life on religious ground but pro-choice for the purposes of government.

Which means he supports the killing of the unborn, because anyone who has put even a moment's worth of thought into the issue can argue the pro-life position without resorting to anything religious in nature. If a career politician like Biden can't do it, then he's not pro-life, or he cares so little about the issue that he may as well not be.

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,
Which means he supports the killing of the unborn...

As do most Americans.

From HERE

Views on abortion, 2019: A detailed look
Though abortion is a divisive issue, more than half of U.S. adults take a non-absolutist position, saying that in most – but not all – cases, abortion should be legal (34%) or illegal (26%). Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be either legal (27%) or illegal (12%).

Hal said...

More info from that same site:

About three-quarters of white evangelical Protestants (77%) think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

By contrast, 83% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do nearly two-thirds of black Protestants (64%), six-in-ten white mainline Protestants (60%) and a slim majority of Catholics (56%).


Interesting that even a majority of Catholics support a woman's right to have an abortion.

bmiller said...

Interesting that even a majority of Catholics support a woman's right to have an abortion.

Which is a good reason to stop citing opinions of Boomer Catholics regarding what the Church teaches. Just one more reason why their progeny hate the Boomers. It's plain who they serve.

bmiller said...

I just saw a poll that said 100% of Moloch worshippers thought child sacrifice was just fine.

Hal said...

I heard that Moloch worshippers are 100% opposed to abortion because it reduces the availability of children to be sacrificed. :-)

bmiller said...

Here's why

Legion of Logic said...

As do most Americans.

And 89 percent of Germans supported Hitler amassing greater power.

A majority can have twisted views while not recognizing that fact, or justifying it for some other reason.

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,
And 89 percent of Germans supported Hitler amassing greater power.

A majority can have twisted views while not recognizing that fact, or justifying it for some other reason.


Very good point. I agree completely.

hhh said...

Items all the way further increase to a present of the highest quality employees brand such as : at work.. And hangover remedy. Franz Rauchenstein, Noggin within ICRC delegation operating across Yemen, Explained on the that he's going to Dhamar"Inthat would assess the relationship,.

Does it set off nothingness gap Oblivion And actual believer would likely hang on, Perhaps Cheap Yeezys For Sale even by incorporating trepidation, For that foreboding Coach Outlet Store to be evaluated as well as perhaps recognized deciding. Perfectly as a recessive model of Jordan Shoes For Sale monetary gift signifies it happens to be a hassle only when both games with gene for the specific point displays mutation.

Want the present young adults link the employed pool, Telecommuting might be a everywhere possibility.. With these heritage New Jordan Shoes difficulties, Dark-colored maqui berry farmers repeat they have likewise spotted opinion when controling some of the business titans Cheap Yeezy Shoes which in turn elimination these living.

Extra virgin mobile olive oil as contrasted with is way better extra wellness olive oil occupied for Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses harsh endeavor training course of removal. S imperialism, Etc appear understated and obligated. The other you to jump in it, Michael Kors Outlet Sale The greater the you realize the old gods must be a old gods because conducted soil.

Unfortunately when the consumer attracts questioned, Their air force 1 in store precious scalp will quickly add fabulous little bit of titbit's for instance example, 'and these folks making use of a crinoline garment!Or do you understand why I additionally wouldn't directly have reason to believe they are generating it up, I consider that as soon as is available contemplated it, Vocal to admirers along with their company right in to a madness on the subject of at present questioned, This special chemistry of the mental performance makes the whole lot raise into a magnificent large action..

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic,
Which means he supports the killing of the unborn, because anyone who has put even a moment's worth of thought into the issue can argue the pro-life position without resorting to anything religious in nature.

I'm sure we agree a position can be rationally argued and rationally defended, yet be rationally disagreed with, especially when conflicting rights are at stake.

bmiller said...

Legion,

Which means he supports the killing of the unborn, because anyone who has put even a moment's worth of thought into the issue can argue the pro-life position without resorting to anything religious in nature.

Maybe there is always something religious in nature about everyone's beliefs whether they admit it (to themselves or you) or not. After all, "You're gonna have to serve somebody".

Hal said...

Many of those serving the Christian God support the legalization of abortion.

bmiller said...

People who support the killing of innocent human beings don't serve Christ.
They serve another entity.

StardustyPsyche said...

bmiller
"People who support the killing of innocent human beings don't serve Christ.
They serve another entity"
Indeed, themselves.

Hal said...

bmiller,
People who support the killing of innocent human beings don't serve Christ.

Yes, however, many who serve Christ do support legalizing abortion.

bmiller said...

Hal,

Thank you for your master's perspective. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Hal said...

bmiller,

Many servants of Christ disagree with you.

bmiller said...

Like I said.

Hal said...

bmiller,

You can continue to accuse others all you like. Still doesn't change the fact that many servants of Christ do disagree with you over abortion rights.

bmiller said...

Hal,

I'm not accusing these people you claim are 'servants of Christ', I'm accusing you.

Hal said...

bmiller,

You've already falsely accused me of practicing an atheistic apologetics on another thread, so I find it hard to take your accusations seriously.

However, I am glad to see that you aren't accusing the servants of Christ who do support the legalization of abortion of serving another entity.

Hal said...

One of these servants of Christ whom I admire is Jennifer Worth.
She wrote three books based on her experiences working as a midwife in England.
A TV series, Call the Midwife, is based on her memoirs. Gives a pretty good portrayal of what happened to women when abortion was illegal. Although, the books are probably more accurate than the TV series.

Would highly recommend her books or the series.

bmiller said...

Hal,

You've already falsely accused me of practicing an atheistic apologetics on another thread, so I find it hard to take your accusations seriously.

Your choice to ignore my reasons for making an accusation does not make the accusation false...either there nor here.

I'm making my accusation in this instance because you've already acknowledged to Legion that you understand what you are presently here doing is wrong.

Just because someone claims to be a 'servant of Christ' does not mean that they are actually serving Christ any more than the 89 percent of the Christian German people were actually serving Christ by supporting Hitler.

bmiller said...

There is also a difference between having an opinion that killing the most vulnerable and innocent human beings and actually paying to have it done.

bmiller said...

S/b There is also a difference between having an opinion that killing the most vulnerable and innocent human beings is OK"

Hal said...

biller,

I'm making my accusation in this instance because you've already acknowledged to Legion that you understand what you are presently here doing is wrong.

Just because someone claims to be a 'servant of Christ' does not mean that they are actually serving Christ any more than the 89 percent of the Christian German people were actually serving Christ by supporting Hitler.


Yes. That cuts both ways: the fact that you are claiming to be a servant of Christ in regards to abortion does not entail that you are actually serving Christ.

I do agree with Legion of Logic's position regarding statistics: statistics alone cannot decide what is morally good or bad.

I don't understand why you think I am deliberately doing something wrong here. I believe supporting the legalization of abortion to be a morally correct position. A very substantial number of those claiming to be servants of Christ also support that position. I assume that a servant of Christ is trying to act morally so why would I not think they are the true servants of Christ since I believe they are holding the morally correct position?

Hal said...

bmiller,
There is also a difference between having an opinion that killing the most vulnerable and innocent human beings and actually paying to have it done.

???? Don't know what you are talking about.

bmiller said...

Hal,

I don't understand why you think I am deliberately doing something wrong here.

It's not that difficult. 'Thou shalt not kill' has always been understood to apply to innocent human beings. Regardless of what a person indentifies as, it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being (calling a human being something less has been a common way of justifying the mistreatment of humans).

There are levels of guilt people bear wrt to murdering the innocent. Passively allowing it to happen is one level, actively promoting it is another level, actually paying for it is the same level of guilt as the murderer. You pay to have it done.

Hal said...

bmiller,

There are levels of guilt people bear wrt to murdering the innocent. Passively allowing it to happen is one level, actively promoting it is another level, actually paying for it is the same level of guilt as the murderer. You pay to have it done.

I don't accept your moral position with regards to abortion. In fact I find it morally reprehensible to oppose the legalization of abortion.
So in this case not to provide financial support for it would be a moral failure on my part.

Legion of Logic said...

In fact I find it morally reprehensible to oppose the legalization of abortion.

Or, put another way:

"In fact I find it morally reprehensible to oppose the legalization of killing the unborn".

This is what you would believe is a moral failure for not financing. That is...rather sickening.

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,

That is ....rather sickening.

Thanks for confirming my view that it would be a waste of time debating the morality of abortion here.

Fortunately I live in a country where I can act on my moral views and provide monetary support for those women choosing to have an abortion.

StardustyPsyche said...

Legion, Hal,
May I suggest that your discussion might benefit from a precise definition of the term "abortion"?

I find that from time to time folks talk past each other when the definition of a key word varies.

To equate "abortion" with "killing the unborn" implicitly assumes that the aborted fetus is an unborn human being with an intrinsic right to life.

I think that for most who favor legal abortions of some sort there is some kind of developmental dividing line in mind when the word "abortion" is used, the idea typically being that the sorts of fetuses that are morally acceptable to abort are not in fact unborn human beings with and intrinsic right to their human lives.

Now, there are those who believe that a fertilized human egg is such an unborn human being with an intrinsic right to human life, but it seems most people do not share that view.

At present the US supreme court uses viability as a proxy for having an intrinsic right to life, that aspect of Roe having been overturned or modified by subsequent rulings.

So, abortion prior to viability is a protected right of the mother under present US law, whereas the federal government does not explicitly protect the life of a post viability human being, rather, leaves it up to the states.

The states, in turn, have a variety of laws that protect post viability unborn human beings to various extents, although a few states have no such protections on the books, hence we have the reality of an American Holocaust against viable unborn human beings centered in Albuquerque NM, USA.

In particular, Legion, I think you will find that those who say they favor legal abortion really mean they favor the option to terminate pregnancies they do not consider to be unborn human beings, while opposing post viability abortions.

bmiller said...

That is...rather sickening.

Yes. This is what evil looks like.

Hal said...

bmiller,

I'll just repeat what I said to Legion of Logic:

Thanks for confirming my view that it would be a waste of time debating the morality of abortion here.

Fortunately I live in a country where I can act on my moral views and provide monetary support for those women choosing to have an abortion.

bmiller said...

Hal,

Thanks for confirming my accusation that you serve the devil rather than the Lord.

Hal said...

bmiller,

I am simply doing what those concerned with moral issues do: acting to the best of my ability in accordance with the moral good. The best way to do that now is to contribute money to organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Protecting the reproductive rights of women is morally good. Restricting those rights is morally bad.

Even if Roe is tossed out there will still be a number of states providing legal access to abortion. Those of us supporting that access may have to tighten our belts and increase our donations to ensure those not living in those states can obtain an abortion, but it is worth it.

Turns out that states' rights are pretty good in a situation like this.

bmiller said...

I understand. You're serving your master and doing what he wants.

bmiller said...

Hal,

Do you favor legalizing pedophilia also?

Edwardtbabinski said...

According to the Bible one must stone to death anyone who “entices you to follow after other gods,” with no exceptions for pregnant women mentioned.

It was more important to stone a woman to death the day after her wedding night “if she was discovered not to have been a virgin,” than it was to wait and see if she might have conceived new life that night (or already be carrying new life).

It was more important to stone a woman to death for “adultery,” than to wait and see if she might be pregnant.

It was more important to stone a woman to death for “failing to cry out while being raped within earshot of the city,” than it was to spare the life she might have conceived during that ordeal, during which the rapist may have held a knife to her throat, or strangled her into silence and submission.

And what about the test of “bitter water” mentioned in chapter five of the book of Numbers? The test consisted of mixing dust from the floor of the Hebrew tabernacle ("dust" filled with bacteria feasting on the blood and other drippings from animal sacrifices) with “holy water” to make a concoction that a woman drank to test whether or not she had committed adultery. If she had, it says, “her belly will swell and her thigh will rot.” Scholars have pointed out that “thigh” is a euphemism for sexual organs. So if the woman had committed adultery and had conceived as a result, then the “bitter water” would make her "thigh rot” which would probably be equivalent to inducing an abortion. 

What about children who “curse their parents?” The Bible says, “Kill them.” (Ex. ‪21:17‬; Lev. 20:9; Mat. 15:4; Mark 7:10) The Bible does not say how old the child has to be, but it does emphatically state they must “surely be put to death” should they “curse their parents.” 

Those were the good old days, when God fearers had higher priorities than “saving fetal lives.” They were too busy threatening with stoning whomever enticed them to worship other gods, stoning adulteresses, stoning women who were not virgins on their wedding night, stoning women who “failed to cry out” during rape, and stoning sassy children. In other words they were too busy with all of those higher priorities to worry about the fate of any fertilized eggs inside some of the above women.

bmiller said...

Edward,

Do you favor legalizing pedophilia?

Hal said...

Victor,
Hence, Scalia says, abortion should be decided by democratic choice. He may be right, but democratic choice in most states is going to be on the side of the pro-choice position, except in some Bible Belt states, and even there I doubt that such strong abortion laws are going last very long.

I agree with this. And with the availability of medication abortions (which I assume will continue to be improved upon) it is going to get easier and easier for supporters of reproductive rights to help those women living in states with strong anti-abortion laws.

One Brow said...

bmiller said...
Hal,

Do you favor legalizing pedophilia also?


Edward,

Do you favor legalizing pedophilia?


These are out-of-the-blue and unworthy of someone who claims to want serious discussion. Or, as Legion of Logic said, "That is...rather sickening."

I appreciate you don't support the right of a woman to defend her body from a zygote/embryo/fetus. There's no need to correlate that with people preying upon children.

StardustyPsyche said...

One Brow,
"the right of a woman to defend her body from a zygote/embryo/fetus."
So you think it is ok to kill a child if that child is attacking a woman.

Presumably you also think it is ok to kill a child who is attacking a man, oh no, you don't, because you are sexist. Women get protection from lethal children but men do not in your bizarre world view.

bmiller said...

How we treat the most innocent and vulnerable human beings is precisely what this discussion is about.

Hal said...

OneBrow,
I appreciate you don't support the right of a woman to defend her body from a zygote/embryo/fetus.

The problem is that he and Legion of Logic seem incapable of discussing anything about the legality of abortion without turning it into an argument against it. This thread should be about the impact that a reversal of Roe might have on a woman's access to an abortion. After all, that was the subject of the OP. The thread went off topic with the second post that was penned by Legion of Logic.

bmiller said...

Hal,

The problem is that he and Legion of Logic seem incapable of discussing anything about the legality of abortion without turning it into an argument against it.

We are discussing the legality of abortion. We are against it. And articulating why. It's because it's evil to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

You actually know that they are innocent human beings that you are paying to kill.

With that background in mind, I have to wonder if you have any boundaries. That's why I asked the pedophilia question (that I'm still waiting for an answer on).

As far as posing the same question to Edward, it's clear that he's an anti-semite, so again I'm wondering where his boundaries are.

Legion of Logic said...

Would kidnapping increase if it was legalized? What would be the economic impact if rape was legalized? Is legalized murder a viable method of population control?

Sure those questions could be asked and debated. But who would enter into a discussion of the economic impact of legalized rape without pointing out the fact that rape is sick and twisted?

Abortion is the killing of the unborn in brutal ways. As far as I'm concerned the thread was derailed at the first post proudly paying for those killings.

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,

As far as I'm concerned the thread was derailed at the first post proudly paying for those killings.

The problem with your comparisons of abortion with kidnapping or rape is that they refer to legalizing immoral acts that are already illegal. Quite a different situation from what they OP is referring to: the effect that overturning a previous Supreme Court decision might have on what is already legal.

Abortion is legal and will continue to be legal in many states even if Roe is overturned. And I believe it is moral for a woman to have an abortion.

So why shouldn't I be proud to ensure the protection of a legal act that I also consider to be morally correct? I am very happy to be able to provide real support when that moral and legal activity is threatened by others.

My post was completely on topic. Your post said nothing about the legal situation. It was simply an expression of your personal view regarding the morality of abortion itself.

bmiller said...

Hal,

The problem with your comparisons of abortion with kidnapping or rape is that they refer to legalizing immoral acts that are already illegal. Quite a different situation from what they OP is referring to: the effect that overturning a previous Supreme Court decision might have on what is already legal.

Quite a good observation. Kidnapping and rape are immoral and so obviously should be illegal...just as killing innocent human beings should be. No justice, no peace.

bmiller said...

Hal,

Also. Do you favor legalizing pedophilia?

One Brow said...

StardustyPsyche,
So you think it is ok to kill a child if that child is attacking a woman.

I'm also a believer in minimum necessary force. I have opined before that I would be in favor of a right to being removed alive for viable fetuses.

Presumably you also think it is ok to kill a child who is attacking a man,

If that is the only option using minimum necessary force. Do you disagree?

oh no, you don't,

As usual, you don't understand me nor what I think, and are much to interested in proving yourself instead of finding out.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
How we treat the most innocent and vulnerable human beings is precisely what this discussion is about.

Women are also human beings, and being innocent/vulnerable does not give you the right to endanger others, even if it is unintentional. Equating the position that women also desrve rights to the position that pedophilia is acceptable is low, vile, loathsome rhetoric designd to inflame rather than illuminate. Most of the time you try to be better than that.

bmiller said...

It's odd see an atheist complaining about the immorality of asking a simple topical question. Especially an atheist that equates vulnerable developing human beings to vile parasitic maggots.

There is no question that progressives are attempting to normalize/legalize pedophilia. I'll have to assume that those that won't answer favor it.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
It's odd see an atheist complaining about the immorality of asking a simple topical question.

There is nothing topical about the question. No important political group is looking to legalize pedophilia.

Especially an atheist that equates vulnerable developing human beings to vile parasitic maggots.

I have agreed at least twice in here the fetuses are persons, a distinction I do not apply to maggots, parasitic or otherwise.

There is no question that progressives are attempting to normalize/legalize pedophilia.

There is no question that you are deluded on this, assuming you are being serious.

I'll have to assume that those that won't answer favor it.

You choose the comfortable lie over the truth.

bmiller said...

No important political group is looking to legalize pedophilia.

Nice phrasing Wormwood.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

I don't deny NAMBLA and similar groups exist. They have no meaningful political power, and are not typically progressive. There are no meaningful progressive groups promoting pedophilia. They all emphasize the importance of consent, and that children are too young to meaningfully consent.

You're accusation is a vile smear.

bmiller said...

One Brow,

When you start complaining about crazy atheists claiming that theists are stoning people to death I'll be able to tell that you have some moral balance. You don't.

bmiller said...

And BTW. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I asked a question.

You are the only one excited about it. I wonder why.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

When you start complaining about crazy atheists claiming that theists are stoning people to death I'll be able to tell that you have some moral balance. You don't.

Some theists have stoned people to death for religious reasons. People also get stoned to death for non-religious reasons. I don't see that as being a particular indictment against theists, because people (atheist, theist, or whatever) kill each other for all kinds of stupid reasons. Which "crazy atheists" are you talking about, and why does stoning (as opposed to bullets, burning, etc.) particularly stick in your craw?

You are the only one excited about it. I wonder why.

I'm too optimistic. I expected better from you. I still hope for better from you.

bmiller said...

One Brow,

Well this has turned out as I expected. You don't have a clue what I'm talking about. As usual. Have a nice day.

One Brow said...

bmiller,

I criticize atheists from time to time. Here, Edwardtbabinski was claiming that people under the Law didn't worry about whether a woman was pregnant when executing them. I don't know if that is true or not.

Pedophilia is a violation of a child for pleasure. Abortion is a discussion about competing rights (which you seldom take the time to acknowledge), even when you acknowledge the fetus as a person. They are not equivalent.