Picture uploaded by brancusi7.
It’s a sick fascination but how can I help it? I love watching the Raving Atheist sliding into Christianity. As we’ve covered before, it’s one of the inconvienent facts about the abortion debate that you cannot make an argument against abortion rights without either turning your back on the American ideal of equality and/or resorting to religious nonsense. This creates some problems if:
- You believe in Sperm Magic.
- You want to wear down the resistance of an avowed celibate.
Surely we all feel the Raving Atheist’s pain. Even the guys trying to argue that Darwin implanted the word “slut” onto our genetic structure have a better case than he does. The latest step towards the inevitable conversion comes to us by the way of Dawn Eden, who’s gloating up a storm over wearing down RA’s will. RA isn’t quite ready to declare Jesus Christ his savior, but he’s finally caved and realized that if he’s going to claim that a brainless fetus has more claim to humanity than the unfortunately fully brained female human it’s housed in, he’s going to have to quit trying to make secular arguments and instead start arguing for the existence of a soul.
Atheists frequently invoke the Euthyphro dilemma to demonstrate that moral truths, if they are truths, must rest on something independent of God’s will if they are anything more than mere whim. And yet with the self and those ideas forming the bedrock of its knowledge, so many are satisfied to leave the answers to the whims of matter and electrochemistry. There is a reluctance to depart from the purely physical realm, perhaps a fear that the concession that the immaterial is not immaterial will open the door to other, less palatable phantoms.
By now many of you may have tired of my seeming hypocrisy, of my evasive, mealy-mouthed, quasi-theistic mystical pandering. But again, who have I upset or irritated? A bubbling cauldron of cranial soup? Maybe it is your synapses that have misfired, not mine. Perhaps a little more serotonin will help you see it my way, or at least make you happy.
For my part, I will continue to believe in you as something more than the sum of your quarks. I have never seen your bodies but I know you by your thoughts. The words transmitted to my computer, seen through a screen darkly, are sufficient evidence of your existence. You will never convince me that you are just sparks emanating from gray matter; I would no more equate you with that than I would equate you with the sparks which transmit your words through my computer’s memory. You may try to convince me otherwise, but your efforts will only further prove my point.
Granted, his post doesn’t mention abortion rights once, but he’s ranting against the idea that our selves are contained in the flesh and that the existence of self is only the product of biological processes. But all us Conversion Watchers know that RA’s been casting around for a way to define an individual human being with rights after being scolded that, biologically speaking, a zygote is no different than any other batch of cells. I promise you—you don’t want to tangle with PZ on biological facts vs. metaphysical horseshit. I would add that in the human rights sense, there’s no real issues with understanding the self as neurons firing, since we, pragmatically speaking, treat everyone with firing neurons in a human body as a human being with rights. It’s only those of us whose brains are gone or haven’t even developed yet that cause problems. So I think his motivations are pretty clear.
Of course, I have to say, the evidence for bullet point #2 is growing, since RA ended the post with this money quote, a stellar bit of wankery:
The immutable laws of the universe may require that for Truth to be received by humans it must delivered in a Form Incarnate.
No one can quite tell what that’s supposed to mean, but we get the underlying subtext. Like Auguste says in the comments:
Don’t worry, RA, I totally get it. I love Dawn too. And I’ve renounced my belief and/or nonbelief structure for chicks countless times. It’s practically a Man Law.
My apologies for my obsession. But it’s like watching someone convert to religious wingnuttery in real time, and it’s fascinating. You really see how the need for male dominance and the sex-phobia really proceeds the religious justifications with this case. I will say it’s taking a bit long, since RA is a stubborn fool. His friends need to get cracking!. Don’t they know that if he has like a freak accident during this process, his atheist ass will go straight to hell? Don’t take the chance, RA! Convert today! You don’t want to end up in hell with the contraceptors.
92 Responses to “Raving Atheist conversion watch”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Let us all bow down before the Invisible Magic Man in the Sky!
I think I’d rather reread Coupland’s Life After God. Seems a bit safer, more straightforward perhaps.
But is it about a conversion to religious wingnuttery? This isn’t really about more humane, decent Christians.
If a zygote is no different than any other batch of cells, then PZ would be content with our using adult stem cells instead of fetal stem cells. Is there a difference or not PZ?
Fuzzy thinking.
There is no argument against the belief that life begins at conception. Or when we draw our first breath. Despite what the anti-abortionists say, it is arbitrary. Just be consistent.
It is sufficient to show the inconsistency of all but a tiny minority, who then become politically irrelevant, in allowing abortion, ever, for any reason. Even if the mother and the child will die if pregnancy progresses. If you think that a pregnancy that will result in the death of the mother and fetus should be reason enough to abort, then you don’t think fetuses are the same as living people. We do not do that with those who have actually joined the human family. We don’t sacrifice one to save another. Even if both will die.
Oh, yeah, and take it from someone who didn’t learn of religious people until old enough to be confirmed Catholic: The Raving Atheist moniker is only half right.
Please, Dr. T. Bow before Teh Chupacabra. He’ll trash that Invisible Man anyday.
Morally, it’s no different, epi. No reason to throw out red herrings.
That said, I agree that for logistical reasons, abortion rights throughout a pregnancy must be honored. However, I can’t be dishonest and say there’s no secular argument for the personhood of a fetus late, late in a pregnancy when it has a functioning brain. It’s just that it’s claims to personhood don’t overrule the woman’s claim to her own body. But there’s not even an argument in early term pregnancy; it doesn’t have a brain and it’s not a person, period. Attempts to claim that is are based in the belief that a man’s ejaculate should have more human rights than a breathing woman.
Or to put it another way, epi—RA works at a crisis pregnancy center. The women he tries to guilt trip out of abortions are considering abortion not because they are in physical danger so much as they simply don’t want to be pregnant. He’s trying to make them feel that their desire not to be pregnant is morally wrong because they are carrying a fetus that has claims to personhood. He is lying to them. He has no reason to believe that a brainless fetus has any claim to personhood whatsoever, unless he’s willing to give up rationality and become a Bible-thumper. Knowing that he has no choice, he’d rather give up rationality than give up his misogyny.
Amanda - So what is RA’s REAL game?
Is he really just some wingnut trying to pollute the waters of legitimate atheism?
Mike, I have no idea. I think basically he was a liberal atheist and his loathing of women overcame his better instincts.
Granted, being an atheist, especially in this society, is walk in the park. I work for a religious institution, and find that I often have to just smile and let comments slide (I need the job…:) But in the online world, I find it a lot harder to defend…
I have not read his stuff, so I am taking your word for it. But I trust your instincts… (I was reading you before you were the “owner”…)
I did go to Dawn Eden’s site - thanks for warning people! - (Snark… - I hate patronizing sites that don’t deserve my viewing - don’t want them to get the hits…) and was disgusted within minutes…
I am very suspicious of these “conversion on the road to Damascus� deals. I have found so much fakery, falsity, manipulation, and outright lying in religion (all kinds), that I am highly skeptical of most religion and religious people…
“You may try to convince me otherwise, but your efforts will only further prove my point.”
That’s what strike me the most in this. That argument is a logic null-zone. That bit of circular reasoning is the direct translation of the argument for so-called Intellgient Design that takes “creation” as proof of the “creator”.
In this case “soulled” behavior is proof of a soul.
Come on, do you really not get what he was saying? I think t’s fairly safe to assume that he meant it’s no different then another clump of cells in terms of having a soul or rights.
I highly doubt he meant that all clumps of cells are exactly the same in every particular, ever.
Second, we do, in fact, allow people to withdraw support to things even when withdrawal of support results in death or misery. I’m freely able to donate nothing to charity, no matter how miserable the world is. I don’t have to donate my kidney no matter how many people might need it.
And, what, in our society if you can’t save two people you just let them both die? If you have to save the mother OR the child, why on earth should the child have precedence?
As for RA, wow, it’s fascinating to watch somebody completely abandon their ideals because they’re scared of abortion.
I mean, uh, clearly our electrical impulses are different from those of a clock radio. The Last Supper is different from a bunch of paint tubes and a roll of canvas.
It’s kind of hard for me to see why certain complicated aggregates of simple parts (IE, us) should be assumed to have souls, while other complex aggregates of simple parts (IE everything in the universe larger then a quark) shouldn’t.
It’s simple, really.
Zygotes have souls, because they are potential Christians. Muslims, on the other hand, may (should?) be exterminated at will. Christian Negroes may be exterminated after Due Process, because they are probably lying about something, and are possibly even crypto-Muslims.
You emotional women can’t seem to think straight about these issues.
Raging Agnostic. He should change his name to reflect reality, and if he’s saying “maybe”, he’s not really an atheist anymore.
Amanda:
As you say, morally it’s the same. And you can prove it even given THEIR premises, is my point.
Was the trip to New York exhausitng fun?
One is reluctant to attack the feminist establishment until equality is achieved, but you must. But not in an destructive, internecine way.
On a more positive note, ERA ERA ERA.
Come on. You got connections now. They want an amendment, give them a freedom and equality one. Its the difference between us and bin Laden. Make them vote against equality for women. The ERA failed, not because most people were against it, but because it didn’t have the necessary super-majority.
I’m no tactician, but I think it the old Equal Rights Amendment is an open issue. When the Democrats take over next, have them push through another ERA, slightly different wording.
Don’t just defend abortion, attack. Go for the jugular.
Raging Agnostic. He should change his name to reflect reality, and if he’s saying “maybe�, he’s not really an atheist anymore.
Hey, be nice to us agnostics!
(I kid. Agnostics are too apathetic to care about people being nice).
(I kid again, in case there are any sensitive agnostics around).
But seriously, Raging Agnostic? When I jestingly described myself as a “practicing agnostic” to a friend, he said “what would agnostics practice, anyway?” To which I replied, “ritualistic shrugging.” Perhaps some more-passionate-about-his-or-her-beliefs agnostic out there will correct me on this, but it does seem like Raging Agnostic is a bit of an oxymoron.
(To cover my ass: All the above is tongue in cheek. Except the bit about the shrugging).
Christopher:
I don’t know him, but is he just desperate for a child?
Amanda said, “However, I can’t be dishonest and say there’s no secular argument for the personhood of a fetus late, late in a pregnancy when it has a functioning brain. It’s just that it’s claims to personhood don’t overrule the woman’s claim to her own body.”
Why not? (Not trying to be an ass. Just trying to understand.)
Joe:
Because the fetus depends on the woman, not the other way around. Why shouldn’t two starving people have the right to take what you call yours? Why is the food in your pantry more yours than a woman’s body is hers?
Actually, Raving Agnostic sounds like a fun blog name to me.
I am very suspicious of these “conversion on the road to Damascus� deals.
Suspicious in what sense? That the person is still unconverted, or that the new convert never really was an opponent, or what?
Amanda,
I totally understand your fascination with this car wreck.
Somebody really needs to do a ethnography on radical right wing blogs. The interest in controlling sexuality through the state and social means is both scary and interesting.
When I tell my non-bloggy friends about these radical blogs - they are amazed. But some of my friends are starting to worry about me — you’re reading WHAT!?! they ask? But it’s fascinating - the psychology of it.
epistemology:
Why? Every ounce of research tells us that fetal stem cells suit our purposes better than adult stem cells, but all things being equal, we should be content to use the clearly inferior product?
“It’s not good, it’s good enough.”
That’s the same attitude that gave Micro$oft Windoze a commanding market-share, a fact that I lament at least once every day of the week.
To which I replied, “ritualistic shrugging.�
Ha!
Lynn, dunno about Amanda, but personally I’m suspicious of such conversions because they’re often just the person mirroring; they don’t change their basic attitudes, they simply rush from one extreme to the other.
Lynn, dunno about Amanda, but personally I’m suspicious of such conversions because they’re often just the person mirroring; they don’t change their basic attitudes, they simply rush from one extreme to the other.
Oh hell yes. Like the Dawn Ed*ns and Jennifer Roback Morses of this world, who had lots of casual sex in their salad days, decided they weren’t fulfilled by casual sex, and have now swung to the opposite end of the pendulum, condemning non-marital, non-procreative sex with orgasmic fervour. And not just for themselves. Oh no, the fact that they personally were not made happy by sleeping around isn’t a sign that maybe they need more self esteem, or better taste in bed partners, or a good vibrator, that means they must crusade against anybody else getting the chance to commit the “sins” they committed in their youth. To the point of making anything they’ve done in the past illegal for everybody else. Oddly enough, they never want to make the laws retroactive, so that they’ll go to jail for having been band groupies. No, it’s just anybody who doesn’t subscribe to the New Chastity who must be punished. If you want to have non-missionary position, non-procreating sex with an opposite sex partner to whom you’re not married (or, God forbid, with a same sex partner to whom you’re legally married in Canada), then you’ll burn in hell. And they’re going to make it save you from that fiery fate by making it impossible for you to get birth control, even if you’ve had twelve kids and you’re body’s worn out. Because the Dawns of this world know better than other people what’s good for everybody.
I don’t know. in spite of having some enjoyable and illuminating discussions on the message board, I never really followed the guy’s blog. I didn’t think his rationalisations for atheism always made sense.
Before his… conversion, or whatever, he was a strong atheist, one who asserted that God could not exist (As opposed to a weak atheist, who assumes that god doesn’t exist, based on the complete absence of evidence).
Bafflingly, his opposition to theism seems to have been based mostly on the severe probles with the Christian idea of god. This former focus on Christianity makes his later assertion that he will no longer say anything against Christianity almost incomprehensible.
What’s weird is the entire conversion/wimpification is based entirely and explicitly on the fact that he’s against abortion.
Christian beliefs should be respected because Christians themselves are often anti-abortion.
I don’t know that he sees it that way, but by deciding not to criticise Christian ideas because, gosh darn it,he wouldn’t want to hurt their feelings, he’s abandoned basically every basic premise that his blog was based on.
I’ll have to disagree with you about the abortion debate. You can be pro-life and not be religious.
Oops, forgot the link http://l4l.org/
Abortion is homicide — the killing of one person by another.
Um, sorry Jason. That’s the fallacy of begging the question, because no one has yet been able to prove that a fetus = a functioning person. Take that fetus out before a certain time, and it won’t be able to live. A fetus fits the definition of a parasite in that it siphons off resources from a host and gives nothing back. And anybody can do what they want with cells in their own body that their own body is nourishing.
I’m against abortion as well, but I am also a liberal. I will not tell someone else what they can do to their own body. Nor will I support any ban on abortion, because it’s a medical procedure. It has nothing to do with you or me or the gubmint. The woman should be able to decide whether she wants to give birth or not. Libertarians need to just come out and say they hate liberty, because every libertarian I’ve met can’t stand the thought of giving women their reproductive rights.
Of course you can, Jason. So long as you’re up front about your belief that women are not full human beings who deserve rights.
I saw a bumper sticker that said “Radical Agnostic” and it made me laugh. I love the ritualistic shrugging idea.
Agnostic church services:
“Eh? Who can say?” (shrug) “Okay, services are done for the week! Time for brunch!”
epi said:
“Because the fetus depends on the woman, not the other way around.”
So dependence equals subservience? How does that work with babies? Young children? The elderly? Recent graduates with philosophy degrees who move back home with their parents? (that last one was kind of a joke). Where do we draw the line that says one person is allowed to end the life of another person because of a dependent relationship?
Remember … this is in response to Amanda’s statement: “I can’t be dishonest and say there’s no secular argument for the personhood of a fetus late, late in a pregnancy when it has a functioning brain.” So we’re already agreed that the fetus is is a completely separate person. If you disagree that a fetus can attain personhood prior to birth, that’s fine. My question was directed at those of you who believe a fetus can attain personhood prior to birth, and that abortion is still ok in those instances.
epi asked:
“Why shouldn’t two starving people have the right to take what you call yours?”
There is no explicit dependece in this relationship, so I don’t follow the relevance to our conversation. Can you explain it for me?
…Once again, I’m not trying to be an ass,
“Eh? Who can say?� (shrug) “Okay, services are done for the week! Time for brunch!�
HAHAHAHAHAHA! You forgot the part where we all high-five each other and pat ourselves on the back.
Edited because I was too harsh.
Joe—because there is an argument that can be made doesn’t mean that I accept the argument. A later term fetus has a brain, which I think is a fairly good measure of a claim to personhood. However, I agree with epi that it’s not a good line to draw for legal or moral reasons because it puts the mother and fetus into conflict and the mother—who is a full human being with thoughts, a life, a name, and the ability to survive on her own—has more rights than the fetus. My point was just that there is no argument whatsoever for the personhood of a fetus before it has developed a brain.
Sorry I was harsh. Late term abortions are a red herring that anti-choicers bring up in order to pull the debate away from what it’s about, which is whether or not we as a society believe women are fully human. If we do, then abortion rights are indisputable. No citizen with full rights is obliged to give her body against her will to another.
the fetus is not a person though, it’s potentionally a person, and therefore has its rights superceded by the actual person i.e. the mother.
And the late term abortions Amanda is talking about only happen for serious medical reasons - and if it’s the choice between both the mother and the fetus dying or the mother sans fetus surviving, the mother sans fetus wins.
Don’t bring hyperthetical pregnant women aborting in the third trimester just for the hell of it into it, it never happens, it’s a moot and entirely philisophical point.
My question was directed at those of you who believe a fetus can attain personhood prior to birth, and that abortion is still ok in those instances.
Abortion is okay in all instances, man. Because the only person who has a right to decide whether to give birth is the person giving birth. Any other argument than that goes against personal freedom. Arguing the personhood of a fetus is a red herring.
Amanda,
Practically and morally we don’t consider a fetus a separate person until it is…separate. At birth. Cut the cord. Start getting your oxygen through your lungs.
This does not denigrate the nascent life a woman nurtures throughout pregnancy. We afford respect to everything that pertains to us humans. Mothers save locks of their baby’s hair. The hair was NEVER living tissue, but still.
How much more should we respect a blastocyst. Even more 6 month old fetus. And almost magically more, the baby after it is born. This is not a hard concept to grasp. We must draw the line somewhere, and to draw the line before birth, leads to absurdities. And appalling moral judgments.
The whole abortion debate suffers from a problem that is common in liberal-conservative conflicts: The conservatives have a simple position and the liberals have a more subtle or complicated one. Most pro-choicers I know view the personhood of a fetus as starting at zero (zygote) and incrementally progressing towards complete or near-complete personhood at birth. I think there’s a very good case to be made for this view, based in science, common sense, and our natural intuition. Viewed this way abortion is about the balance of the rights of the woman and the fetus, unambiguously favoring the woman initially, and becoming more complex in the very late stages of pregnancy. For me the right of the woman wins throughout, because even after birth the nervous system is incomplete.
The philosophical issues are one thing, and the practical issues are another thing entirely. It’s all well and good to have a thoroughly thought out position on the morality of abortion, but the policies and laws that follow from that position have to be implemented by real people in real situations, with all the messiness that implies. The idea fo having some sort of judicial process which weighs the relative right to life of a partially formed person against the pain, health risks, mental condition, and other issues faced by a woman is just absurd. Not only does it impose a huge burden on the woman, it also takes time during which the fetus is growing and the external factors influencing the woman’s decision are changing, quite likely being manipulated by people who want the decision to go one way or another.
The upshot is that the least burdensome route is the best - leave the decision in the hands of the woman, and allow people who believe one way or another to offer opportunities to ease her decision.
Joe:
Nowhere did I say dependence is subservience. A baby is dependent on me but does not serve me.
Joe:
Exactly where dependence means parasitically sucking the life from another person. Think. You may need this later. If the people who are most close to you can’t end your life when you are not able to speak for yourself, you may deeply regret it. Should legislators or your family decide?
I’m glad you asked. Maybe I didn’t frame it well for you. Say it’s New Orleans. You have provisions, your neighbor doesn’t. You find they have been sneaking into your place at night to steal your food and feed their kids. Now certainly it would be morally reprehensible if you didn’t share, but is it murder on your part if you didn’t?
If a woman is raped and decides to abort, is it murder? Or is the fetus sometimes human, sometimes not for you? I am looking for logical consistency.
JackGoff, this libertarian has the same position you do with respect to a woman’s right to bodily autonomy in pregnancy. So now you can’t say anymore that you’ve never met a libertarian who doesn’t uphold abortion rights. Plus, I know lots of libertarians (the majority of those I know) who agree with me and you.
Epistemology, you are making two mistakes.
One is that you think that those who believe in abortion access have no respect for things that are or have to do with humans. (Make up your mind… you abortion opponents can’t call us godless human-worshippers and then also claim we’re anti-human.) Your crack about human hair is particularly disingenuous. Do you go around collecting hair from barbershops in order to enshrine it with the proper respect? Do you collect dirty tampons for the sake of preserving the human reproductive tissue contained therein? No? Then shut up about the “living tissue” nonsense.
Your second mistake, it appears, is to believe that we think abortion is just nifty and we think everyone should have one or more just for the hell of it. Of course we understand that abortion is a regrettable solution to a devastating problem. Of course we think it is better not to have unintended or unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But reality is messy, believe it or not, and sometimes you have to make hard decisions. We decide in favor of the living, active woman rather than in favor of the half-formed nodule of potential.
Jack,
If fetus != person, then baby != person. A newborn babe is completely dependent on its mother for all care and nutrition. It cannot survive on its own either.
Friday Blogroll!…
There will be no blogroll next Friday. Instead, I will be here…
…and here…
Chicago rules. But anyway, that’s next week. This week, I’m still here, and once again, the blogs were pretty top-notch….
Rock on, Speedwell. I’ll keep that in mind.
And, Jason. Fetus != baby, so what’s your point? One is born, the other ain’t.
“I saw a bumper sticker that said “Radical Agnosticâ€? and it made me laugh. I love the ritualistic shrugging idea.”
I prefer “Militant Agnostic” - I don’t know, and neither do you!
But I would gladly go to a shrug-and-brunch service.
“Why not? (Not trying to be an ass. Just trying to understand.) ”
Oh, yes, you are clearly trying to be an ass. Ass.
If fetus != person, then baby != person. A newborn babe is completely dependent on its mother for all care and nutrition. It cannot survive on its own either.
Not so. A fetus is dependent on the woman’s body in which it is contained; a newborn baby is dependent on someone willing and able to provide it with sustenance and shelter.
When a baby is a burden on its mother, for whatever reason, she can put it up for adoption. Whether it’s a burden in terms of finances, or in terms of the mother’s health and wellbeing, or even if it’s a matter of the baby itself not being safe in the environment the mother has provided, the baby can be placed in the care of another.
Not so with a fetus. A fetus imposes itself on and takes nourishment from a woman’s body, and if she doesn’t want it there anymore, there’s nowhere else for it to go. Maybe, someday, medical technology will create a fetal incubator so that a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant can pop that sucker into a jar and appease the religious right, but until that time, she has every right to not be pregnant if she doesn’t want to be. The fact that, without her body as a host, the fetus has nowhere to go, is not her problem. Just like you’re under no obligation to house the beggar who comes to your door, she’s under no obligation to house a fetus against her will.
Libertarians need to just come out and say they hate liberty, because every libertarian I’ve met can’t stand the thought of giving women their reproductive rights.
Actually, I’ve never met a libertarian in real life who was pro-life. There must be some kind of clustering going on here, or something.
Oh, wait, I did know one exception, but he wasn’t particularly serious or consistent about either the libertarian part or the pro-life part.
Yeah, I guess that all the “libertarians” that I’ve met just call themselves that, but have no reason to. I apologize for making generalizations.
The “libertarians” that I have met have all seemed to focus on railing against paying taxes, and they usually get around to saying something about paying for the abortions of “crack whores’ babies” or something similar. And then they go on a screed about personal consequences and how making abortions illegal will fix sooo many social problems. I guess I’ve gotten a bad sampling.
People! You’re all avoiding the big issue. If RA becomes Raving Xtian will Maiden Dawn abandon the New Chastity? (At least once?)
First, I think you folks might profit from this little dialogue. It goes in some different directions from most aborton discussions.
BUt one additional point in the discussion of the dependence of the fetus: it is completely dependent on the mother–but it also does not act except through the mother. It does nothing, makes nothing, communicates nothing, goes nowhere, knows no externals or other beings.
If we are talking about legal persons, what do you call a person who does not act in any way, does not take or give, move itself or other things, talk or communicate with other persons?
A ghost? A unicorn? A legal fiction?
Yeah, Jack, I know a few of those too and I can hardly blame you for being disgusted. Libertarianism is about personal responsibility all right, but those maniacs think we need to impose consequences so that sinners against their sense of decency have consequences to suffer where they otherwise might just live in peace and privacy. Those maniacs are not libertarians; they’re cold, cruel cranks who call themselves libertarians in order to give their shriveled, ugly rants an artificial rouge of tolerance.
My question was directed at those of you who believe a fetus can attain personhood prior to birth, and that abortion is still ok in those instances.
I saw an argument once that seemed like a striking new idea, at least to me… Besides the critiques of the effects of Roe v. Wade, you’ll also see reactionaries complaining about the ruling itself, claiming it’s incoherent, it doesn’t follow from the amendments it cites, etc. The Fourth Amendment is a good example. “How could a sane and honest judge possibly see any connection between abortion and unreasonable searches and seizures?” goes the right-winger’s argument from incredulity, if I’m using that term correctly.
Well, I finally happened on someone who got around to explaining that. (Lauren from Feministe, maybe?) The Fourth Amendment is directly based on the “a [person’s] home is his castle” theory, as are a few other amendments indirectly and a whole bunch of other laws. Some states explicitly have laws saying that you can use lethal force or do almost anything you want to an unauthorized intruder, and many more would have a whole lot of sympathy for that theory even if they don’t codify it. In practical terms it often falls through and every rule has exceptions, etc. etc. etc., but that’s the theory. And the Fourth Amendment reaffirms the “a [person’s] home is his castle” idea by showing how it applies to the government instead of one individual versus another.
Thinking about an intruder to your body in the same way might seem ghoulish in emotional terms to some, but if you can use any means necessary to remove someone from your house, it’s hard to see why you couldn’t do the same to remove someone from your body. So personhood might relate to whether abortion is ethical, but it should not be the only measure of whether it’s legal.
I’m not sure why there is such a problem with “when the fetus becomes a person” issue. Why can’t we apply the same standard to beginning of life issues that we do to end of life issues? At what point in the development does the fetus have a functioning neo-cortex (e.g., it is no longer “vegetative”)? At what point does it have a functioning respitory, circulatory, and digestive systems?
Before these things occur, a fetus can’t possibly have any greater legal standing than a dependent relative on life support. And the guardians of that dependent make the decision whether to withdraw life support or not. And this decision is made every day, in every state, without laws and amendments and government interference.
Well put, Cyrus. And that’s why John Roberts’ cagey answers during his Senate hearings about the 4th Amendment were so scary because he was well and obviously aware that in order to preserve it while also banning abortion, you have to basically accept the idea that women are exempt from constitutional protections. I do think he believes that, in fact. It makes sense, since after all they were exempt when the document was written. Which is why we need the ERA.
JackGoff -
I’m with you. I am pretty sure I have never met a “real” libertarian. All the people I’ve met who call themselves “libertarianâ€? fall into one of two categories: Either they really don’t understand the meaning of the political philosophy called “libertarianismâ€?, or (and this ends up basically being the same thing) they are now embarrassed to verbally support the R*publican Party (although they voted that way in every election until 6-months ago) so they call themselves “libertarianâ€?.
Most of them seem to think being libertarian is every bit the same as being a R*publican except somehow ideologically purer and therefore less subject to criticism.
In the end they’re still wingnut wankers…
MikeEss, the description “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” may make more sense to you as a description of libertarian philosophy. It’s not perfect but it’s a better start than the bad experiences you’ve had. I’m sure you aren’t familiar enough with libertarianism to call this or that person a “real” libertarian. IMHO the field is too complex to name-call in that way.
Speedwell –
I think I have a pretty good idea of what Libertarianism actually means. I do think it serves more as a way to discuss ideals and philosophy than as a “real� working political strategy. (Socialism to me serves much the same purpose… I don’t think either “socialism� or “libertarianism� in their pure forms could really be made to work…)
All of these political philosophies bring interesting ideas to the discussion (ever, god forbid, “neo-conservatism� – I said that holding my nose…).
My specific problem with “libertarianism� is that many who self describe as “libertarian� are, as has been discussed, using the label to escape responsibility for their support of the R*publican party.
That isn’t a philosophy, it’s yet another example of avoiding responsibility for the world of shit we live in because they voted for the morons currently in power…
Amanda:
Don’t know why, but I just got my first “awaiting moderation” on a comment. Is that good or bad?
Jason:
Maybe Bluey can help explain the matter to you.
Mike, that’s fair. Way I see it, the more aware we all are about reality and our own individual path through a complex society, and the more we respect each other’s autonomy and well-being, the better off we all are even if we never again pronounce the name of any political party.
Jason:
You know, I’ve seen some pretty piss-poor analogies in my time, but this one takes the cake.
Speedwell - No harm, no foul…
Really, the 30 percenters are the only ones who take it all so seriously that people are harmed…
Y’gotta remember..or at least understand, that a genuine atheist is at base..a believer.
One must believe to accept or incorporate an absence because that absence is neither provable (testable) nor disprovable (falsifiable).
That so, Raving Atheist et al are setup-ups for conversion to something
I’ve seen some pretty piss-poor analogies
Well, technically, it is a valid statement. “If P, then Q” has a truth value of “true” when P is “false”, regardless of what Q is. Now, since P is false, he has nullified his intent, because then his argument is begging the question “Is a fetus a person?” Which is logical fallacy. And completely besides the point, thus, a red herring.
Jason, I realize logic is teh hard and teh sux, but please, try for the rest of us.
True, has_te. That’s why I can’t be an atheist. Speaking of which, shrugging services begin in 20 minutes. Gotta warm up.
Speedwell:
You, on the other hand, make only one mistake: misreading my posts entirely. I am as strong a supporter of choice as there is. I don’t claim that we should, even at 9 months, treat an unborn baby as the equivalent of the mother.
For the record, I think we should use the drawing of your first breath as the sharp line demarcating entry into the human family. There is abundant support for that in the Bible, and no support in the Bible for life beginning at conception.
And science doesn’t support it either. And if you take conception to be the entry into the human family, then you run into moral absurdities, like the Catholic Church does, when they say that if a mother and a fetus will die in the pregnancy, and abortion will save the mother, you must let both die.
Any anti-abortion supporters here want to defend that? Or are you all content to say that abortion is sometimes murder, and you will be the one to decide when?
has_te:
Which is why I am not an atheist. The answer to the question “Is there a god” is not no, the answer is it is a poorly formed question. Get back to me with a question that makes sense, and is susceptible to evidence and reason.
“Y’gotta remember..or at least understand, that a genuine atheist is at base..a believer.”
I always disliked that sweeping definition of atheism. I don’t buy it.
Genuine atheists “believe” that you should believe something only if you have a reason to. Technically, I suppose that makes them believers.
JackGoff: Sadly you’ve not encountered that off a sample, of libertarians. I know a largish number of libertarians (and I’m not going to get into “L”, “l” real, unreal, half-assed, etc. I’m taking them at face value when they tell me they are libertarians) who are anti-choice/pro-life, whatever one wants to call it.
The worst case is a wiccan, anti-choice, pro-evolution, prayers in schools are a positive good (or at the very least do less harm than not, and so ought to be legal) fellow.
I’m not sure how he rationalises the internal condtradictions, but the human mind is an incredible thing.
What I see is, largely, two camps. Social conservatives, who want to return to a l’aissez faire business model, and folks who think the rights of individuals are trumps. I am, to some degree, in the latter camp, though (like Teddy Roosevelt), and Adam Smith) I think there are a number of things, esp. in re business, where a Gov’t is the only agency capable of keeping the playing field level.
TK
JackGoff:
And as we all know, “technically” is the best kind of correct. (WAR Hermes Conrad)
Your analysis is great if you presume that Jason is making a deductive argument, but he’s not. He’s attempting to construct an analogy. We can’t analyze those in the same way.
His antecedent (”fetus != person”) isn’t, as you say, false, and it isn’t begging the question so much as raising the question. “Begging the question,” in a logical context, is basically the same as making a circular argument. You’ve questioned his premise (”raising the question”), but he’s not making a circular argument (”begging the question”).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question (esp. the section on “Modern usage”).
Back to the point:
A fetus is not, by any objective measure, a person, at least not in the way that Jason means “person.” His problem arises when he tries to draw an analogy between “fetus” and “baby,” something that very few biologists would agree to (and which Jason hasn’t even attempted to establish in any case), and reaches a patently erroneous conclusion (”baby != person”) from it.
Splitting some definitional hairs that most people aren’t even aware of:
The word atheist itself literally means “without god(s).” The classic division is:
1. A “hard atheist” believes in the nonexistence of God. I think this is where RA falls (fell?).
2. A “weak atheist” does not believe in the existence of God. This is where I personally fall. I suppose full disclosure would classify me as an apathetic weak atheist. God may exist, but s/he/it does s/he/it’s thing and I do mine; God’s existence or
nonexistence is as relevant to me as the existence of Doppler radar is to a squirrel.
Agnosticism is a separate isssue from personal belief on God’s existence - agnostics believe that the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable (the word means “without knowledge”). You can be a Christian and be an agnostic - you believe in God, but don’t expect to have God communicate with you or directly reveal a presence. This would be where the “faith” part of religion comes in.
I realize most people use “atheist” to mean “hard atheist” and “agnostic” to mean “weak atheist,” but I prefer these original, more precise terms. The horse may be making a break for the county line, but I will still dutifully close the barn door.
What I see is, largely, two camps. Social conservatives, who want to return to a l’aissez faire business model, and folks who think the rights of individuals are trumps.
“L’aissez faire“? Argh.
Oddly enough, if you take out the “i”, that would sortakinda translate to “enough to make do,” but I doubt that’s what you meant.
2. A “weak atheist� does not believe in the existence of God. This is where I personally fall. I suppose full disclosure would classify me as an apathetic weak atheist. God may exist, but s/he/it does s/he/it’s thing and I do mine; God’s existence or
nonexistence is as relevant to me as the existence of Doppler radar is to a squirrel.
That’s almost how I feel, but oddly enough, I often call it deism. I think most deists would stratch the “may”, but other than that would agree with your statement. “I believe God exists, I just don’t care,” as I told some Mormons at the door once, only half-joking. Unfortunately, it wasn’t scary enough to interrupt their sales pitch. Phooey.
From Wikipedia:
Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof either of God’s existence or nonexistence, but since God (if there is one) appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
That’s me. But I’m still going to say agnostic.
What I find interesting about all this definitional stuff is that each definition thrown out there has talked about believing in “God,” with a capital-G. Everyone’s definitional starting point seems to be Abrahamic monotheism.
I don’t “not believe in God.” I haven’t seen evidence for the existence of any deity.
Hard atheist: That’s me for the last couple years, after having grown up Christian and, in my early 30s, beginning to climb an increasingly steep path from doubt to disbelief.
How can I say God doesn’t exist? Well, no god-claim makes any sense. Most people disbelieve in all the god-claims but one, as the saying goes; I simply disbelieve in the remaining one. There isn’t any evidence for a God or gods that something else, real or conceivable, doesn’t explain. We can do very well indeed when we leave God or gods out of all the explanations. God concepts are packaging that makes it more or less convenient for some people to handle reality, but once I decided to take reality on its own terms, I had no more use for God than I did for a milk carton after I drank the milk.
We can’t analyze those in the same way.
Thanks, Dan! ;-D
Agnosticism is a separate isssue from personal belief on God’s existence - agnostics believe that the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable (the word means “without knowledge�). You can be a Christian and be an agnostic - you believe in God, but don’t expect to have God communicate with you or directly reveal a presence. This would be where the “faith� part of religion comes in.
Hmm, I believe in God, believe that God communicates with people, and don’t think that this happens in a way that’s subject to independent verification. I’m not sure whether that means I’d be an agnostic according to this definition or not.
I haven’t seen evidence for the existence of any deity.
Yeah, I agree, Jeff. I catch myself doing it often because of habit. I don’t know about God, the Mythical Hydra-Beast, Teh Chupacabra, or any other deities. And I really don’t care. It’s a question that has no answer but one you create for yourself.
Oh, and since I’m a pedantic cuss and someone inclined to shout “RTFD” at people due to a bad experience working as an in-house proofreader:
Main Entry: lais·sez-faire
Pronunciation: “le-”sA-’fer, “lA-, -”zA-
Function: noun
Etymology: French laissez faire, imperative of laisser faire to let (people) do (as they choose)
1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action
(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
“That’s almost how I feel, but oddly enough, I often call it deism.”
I’ve always thought deism meant a belief in a god who created the world but does not interfere. Wikipedia says the classical meaning of it is a faith in god based on logic rather than faith, but my definition has become the common meaning.
“Hmm, I believe in God, believe that God communicates with people, and don’t think that this happens in a way that’s subject to independent verification. I’m not sure whether that means I’d be an agnostic according to this definition or not.”
I’d call it agnosticism, or damn close. You believe any evidence of the existence of god is subjective, which to me is really stretching the definition of “evidence.” I don’t think I’d be reaching too far to say you’d call belief in God a matter of personal experience and faith, and if so, I’d call it agnosticism.
“…an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.”
— Bertrand Russell
That’s my take on the atheism vs. agnosticism thing, one pretty much in line with “apathetic agnosticism.”
On the other hand, an actual belief in a God that communicates with people is certainly not agnosticism by any conventional definition of the word, and probably not deism either.
There’s a website about the Church of the Apathetic Agnostics–”We don’t know and we don’t care.” I think that sums me up.
I’m with you, Cassandra. But what does it say if I then add that I think God exists for you if you think he does (masc. and Judeo-Christian for simplicity)? As in, God doesn’t exist outside of a person’s use for him, like, you created him in your mind, therefore, for you, he exists. I would never tell my Christian friend he’s wrong to believe in his God, because in my opinion, God exists - for him. For me, I don’t know whether he exists or not yet, and probably never will, because it’s not important to me. There’s Good Stuff in the universe, it came from somewhere, that’s all I need to know on the matter to be content spiritually. Should it be proven it came from science and only science (as in, PZ is empirically right), then obviously I’ll go with that. Should it be proven to come from Magical Sky Man A. B, and C, then I’ll go with that. But since none of these things has happened, and probably won’t, I just don’t care.
I always kind of felt that being capable of conceiving of a god was part of what made us human, but that if a god exists, he/she/it/they came into being at that moment when we as a species became able to conceive of its existence. And that’s not a poke at atheists - I just realised how that could be taken. I mean that as in, you can imagine something that is intangible and bigger than what you know, whether you think that particular thing is real or not. So in a sense, that theory applies to all abstract/intangible things.
I’ve always wondered if being intelligent doesn’t cause its own psychosis. The effort to cope with all that can be seen/heard/felt/smelled, for a machine as incredibly complex and curious as the human mind, must be an incredible burden.
I read in SciAm a while back that a large percentage of the mind/brain seems to be dedicated to modeling everything of value around us (to help us understand how/why/when/what things we need to do, or not do, in any given circumstance…). Given how little information we usually have before we make any given decision, it is no wonder to me that concepts like superstition and God seem to come up in every culture.
‘Course, I have a degree in CS, I am fascinated with science, engineering, technology, art, politics, history, sociology, anthropology, literature…(and just about everything else…)
I’m just a nerd, what the hell do I know…
Wittgenstein and others have reasoned that it’s impossible to know objectively whether there is a God. The question then becomes, as with any possible or potential occurance, what probability to assign to it. For me, it ranks down there with unicorns and Elvis sightings.
Bitter Scribe:
I can think of no way we could distinguish between God (Invisible Magic Man in the Sky version) and a sufficiently advanced alien. Thus, I chose to worship the aliens.
Don’t get distracted by “when does human life begin?” arguments, folks. As Amanda said, it’s not *abortion* that’s his issue, it’s *women*. Unless he’s at least pushing condoms and other barrier methods, he’s not really concerned about the poor helpless blastocyst-Americans. It’s sex, and woman having sex because we want to, that’s his real trigger issue.
Orwell thought that the Anti-Sex League was perfectly possible in an atheist dictatorship, but I’m not so sure that the ASL is compatible with psychological atheism. Stalinism and Maoism may have claimed to be atheist, but they really raised a Big-Brother God up in place of the ones they claimed not to believe in.
Précisément, Doctor Science. Anything other that a pro-contraceptive stance is an attempt to destroy women’s rights. Banning abortion means nothing other than totalitarianism. Personhood of the fetus is one big red herring, as I said earlier.
It occurs to me that RA’s slide into theism should actually be heartening for the atheists who argue that atheism is a better basis for morality than religion. RA is leaving atheism because he needs a Great Sky Penis to support his sexism: in other words, atheism is too moral for him, it would require a level of human decency he’s not up to.
Not that some atheists aren’t flaming sexist asshole jerks, of course. But clearly atheism doesn’t *support* that — they have to be FSAJs all on their own.
Of course you can, Jason. So long as you’re up front about your belief that women are not full human beings who deserve rights.
A good, consistent position that avoids problems for full human beings, i.e. men.
The unfortunate drawback to this is that many of us happen to love women. Kinda makes it difficult to consider them animals, you know?
If fetus != person, then baby != person.
See this discussion from the Born Again Virgin Eden’s blog…