Category Archives: Abortion

The Theological Basis Against Abortion and Secularism of Choice

I have always been amazed that folks which are rabidly against abortion cannot understand, at least in principle, why 80% of Americans since 19761 are in favor of abortion being allowed in some or all circumstances. The radical anti-abortion folks quickly label these 80% of Americans as “baby killers”. First, let’s take a step back and clarify terms.

I do not call anti-abortion folks “pro-life” simply because they are not in any sense pro-life for the following reasons:

In a purely logical sense, pro-life is not compatible with the belief in the death penalty.

Similarly, pro-life does not justify war, the mass and indiscriminate extermination of human life. The pro-lifers that voted for G.W. Bush do not think of themselves as murdering hundreds of thousands of children, women and men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks to their vote, we also murdered more of our own children than 911accomplished. Even their infamous president admitted at least one of those wars was a ‘mistake’. I have never heard a rabid pro-lifer refer to themselves as murderers for their vote for G.W. Bush but they do refer to those who vote for choice as murders. Can anyone say ‘double-standard’.

If pro-life includes all life, anyone that is not a vegan can also be called a murderer.

Some have gone so far as to claim plants have life and those that eat plants are murderers. How far psychological neurosis can go in this direction is unclear but I guess that really is the definition of neurosis and ultimately self-destruction.

The basic problem that the anti-abortion folks have is that for most reasonable folks one cell subdividing does not constitute a human life. Every animal on the planet starts out as one cell subdividing as far as I know. A fetus goes through almost all the evolutionary stages in early development that many other animals go through. So, from a secular, scientific point of view the distinction of human life and animal life at conception or the early stages of fetal development can hardly be justified. To call someone a ‘murderer’ for believing in the validity of this rationale does not incriminate the hard, cold logic and reasonableness of this point of view. It really tells us something about the psychology and religious beliefs of the accuser.

If the anti-abortion folks would overtly make their claim against abortion based on religious and metaphysical beliefs, I would have no argument against that since belief and faith are not qualified by logic and reason. Certainly, history has shown us and still demonstrates the possible downside of belief and faith when logic and rationality are thrown out the window. Certainly, there have also been atrocities when the appearance logic and rationality have also been at the fore. The difference between religious belief and secular understanding is that, as Popper stated, secular, scientific logic and reasoning is contingent, it is falsifiable. Religious belief cannot be falsified without violating the basic tenant of faith. Falsifiability depends on a community of rigorous experimentation and consensus based on the scientific method not on tenants of dogma or intimidation. By the way, I am not suggesting faith and religious belief is altogether bad. I do recognize its upside potential.

The anti-abortion folks have learned that their fanaticism gets easily dismissed when they appeal solely to religious dogma. Therefore, they have made feeble attempts to justify their extremism with insults and pseudo-science. Reminiscent of the appeals many of them also make to creationism and against human caused climate change, they attract marginal and apparent ‘facts’ to justify what is fundamentally a religious belief not a proven scientific fact. They change and shade the meaning of the word ‘fact’ and commonly accepted meanings of words to seemingly substantiate their religious belief. They used to proclaim that “all life is sacred”. It seems now that this has been superseded by insults, indignant and even violent assaults on anyone that thinks one cell subdividing is not yet a ‘baby’. Simply put, ask any rabid anti-abortion person if one cell subdividing could in any way not be called human. None will tell you yes, or even, “I can understand the legitimacy of that claim”. Instead, those of us for choice are met with a barrage of intense hatred and character insults. The apparent idiosyncrasy of their hatred and their implicit religious metaphysic especially in the example of Jesus are amazingly at odds. The adamant claim that human life occurs with conception, the penetration of the sperm into the egg, is a purely definitional and arbitrary assignment. To claim that they are ‘pro-life’ and the rest of us are murderers for not accepting this definition as gospel fact is absolutely ludicrous.

There is an interesting philosophical consideration that Aristotle was famous for thinking through when the claim is made for potential. At conception, there is potential for human life. This does not mean that there is absolute, human life at conception as those born with a vegetative brain can reasonably bring into question whether this kind of life is human as it does not in any apparent, functional or observable way rise above or even equal a common animal life. Sure we can believe that this vegetative state has the potential to be different just as pigs could fly and stones could talk but we need to understand the difference between hope and desire and brute fact. Potential is not absolute but relative. Potential is relative to actuality. Actuality never has a some kind of hermetically sealed (or definitionally sealed) ‘life of its own’. It is always contingent on temporality; its unfolding expression through time. To make potentiality an absolute, as ‘human life’ from conception, apart from existence is to shift the meaning of the word into metaphysics. I might add that this is why later Latin theologians largely misinterpreting Aristotle, applied the title Physics and Metaphysics to two famous collections of Aristotle. I have discussed this aspect more thoroughly in other posts on this site.

In any case, the intensity and zealotry of the anti-abortion folks goes way past the claim for a philosophical, religious or even rational claim and can only properly be thought in terms of a pathological and deviate psychology. Watching Carly Fiorina the other night on the Republican debate talk about abortion is a clear example of how these folks process abortion. Chopping up babies in some sort a sadistic ritual of capitalistic pleasure is quite a long way from the position that one cell subdividing is not a human life. However, for these folks, you are either a sadistic baby killer or one of them. While this kind of sentiment is more akin to ISIL than to Jesus or common sense, it is commonly and unquestionable accepted on the far right. What this should tell the rest of us is not any kind of legitimacy to their point of view but contrarily to the depth of their personal psychological delusions and maladies. Would we really want a person with these kinds of issues as president? Many of the current Republican presidential contenders have sided and defended these abnormalities which should inform us about their viability as well.

I am and have always been more than willing to politically compromise with rational folks on restrictions to abortion but it is increasingly hard to find folks on the other side of choice that can compromise on abortion. They are committed as much as any fighter for ISIL on making abortion illegal in any and all circumstances. They would impose harsh criminal penalties on doctors, women that get abortions and folks that are pro-choice. It is not unimaginable that their psychological traumas would impose violent and undemocratic ends on the profane as George Tiller and other killings have amply demonstrated. If you give them a inch they demand a mile because they would rather undermine our system of democracy, throw away the judicial branch of government in some unthought ‘constitutional’ fashion than consider that most folks, 80% since 1976, are not like them and vote against them. Nothing else matters to a zealot except their own physiological fascination and pathology. The only thing I can add is that if folks vote these lunatics in we will all get what we deserve. It will not be democratic and reasonable but will only result in violent, dictatorial consequences on women and those that believe women should have the right to choose.





1 Fallacies from Anti-Abortionists

“Personhood” Amendment in Colorado

If you oppose the latest attempt by a radical minority in Colorado to continually usurp the will of the voters, please send your elected representative an email and let them know. You can use any or all of the letter I wrote to my state representative and senator below…


I am writing to ask that you oppose Senate Bill 15-268, A BILL FOR AN ACT CONCERNING OFFENSES AGAINST AN UNBORN CHILD. This bill is a yet another blatant attempt by the anti-abortion folks to force their dogma into government policy. The bill contains the following description:


This bill and others like it should be struck down by good legislative stewardship for the following reasons:

The voters in Colorado have voted against these “personhood” bills for some time. This is the will of the people.

During weeks 1 and 2 of gestation a woman “is not yet pregnant”. Also, week 5 is when the heart and brain begin to develop in a fetus. The science tells us that certainly without a brain we cannot call the fetus human or a person. See Fetal Development

The Supreme Court has continually reaffirmed that a fetus is not a person if it cannot survive outside the womb. Any law which goes against the solid, historical jurisprudent precedence will ultimately cost the Coloradan taxpayer needlessly for legal expenses.

Any aggravated assault of a pregnant woman already caries criminal penalties which include life in prison. This law is not necessary and a blatant attempt to erode the will of the people.

Since the beginning of the gallop pole in 1975, only 20% of our citizens believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and 80% believe that abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances even though some of the latter folks call themselves “pro-life”. See Gallop Pole

I believe all these facts indicate that responsible, legislative representation should resist any and all attempts of a radical minority to legislate what is ultimately their religious beliefs.

Best Regards,

Ken Buck and “Pro-abortion”

Ken Buck made a comment last night that he makes a distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion folks. Just as “pro-life” is an intentionally manipulative misnomer so is this distinction. I have made the case on my blog ( that “pro-life” folks are not “pro-life” as they would have you believe. They are really anti-abortion folks that maintain a radical, fundamentally religious position if they oppose abortion under any circumstances. Additionally, if they really believed that all life was sacred they would oppose the death penalty, oppose war and favor a radical solution to health care. In any case, my intent with this post is to suggest that the argument that Ken Buck and the other anti-abortionists make that assumes there are rabid “pro-abortion” folks out there are really a deflection of their own radical views.

It is nonsensical to suggest that pro-choice folks really want people to get abortions. It is ludicrous to think that most sensible folks would want to push abortions on people. Why would anyone in their right mind insist that someone get an abortion? The only way I could see that someone could arrive at this position would be if they wanted to target an ethnic group on the grounds of some extreme genocidal position. Does Ken Buck think that these “pro-abortion” folks really want to target an ethnic group? The anti-choice folks have made these claims in the past about historical, pro-choice people but these days that claim only makes them look like lunatics to those of us outside their club. What other reason would someone be radically “pro-abortion”?

What he calls “pro-abortion” is really only people that think abortion should be an individual choice and not a big-government call about what should be a personal issue (to put it in Ken Buck’s terms). What really bothers me about this tactic is that it re-directs the real extremism to a fabricated extremism. Psychologists call this “projection” but in sociological terms it is really an attempt at mass manipulation. The real radicals are the ones that believe abortion should be outlawed under any circumstances (rape, incest, to protect the life of the mother, etc.). However, if they can re-define their extremism as the more “sensible” position then their position feigns the appearance of less radical and thus, more moderate. Thus, the “right” is never “right enough” and the left is always increasingly just left of the radical right. If the position that the government should not intrude on people’s personal choice for an abortion is shown to be “pro-abortion” and radical then the anti-abortion folks make their extremism more palatable. If people see through this, their feeble attempts at manipulation are ineffective and the real zealots become apparent.

What I take away from Ken’s comment is that he is content to surround himself with extreme right positions and he is willing to make everyone else look like the extremist he really is. If one adopts an ideology that can never directly be stated but only pointed at in “code words” it is because the ideology cannot stand on its own, in the light of reason and reasonable folks. I get the feeling that a lot of the right wing rhetoric is dishonest, pointing to ideas that they cannot express directly except in their inner circle. Thus, comments border on elitism, support for the rich and big business, racism, sexism, and homophobia but never quit get there in public discourse because that light would be too revealing. I know there are conservatives that have direct, honest and well thought out positions but this trend on the right is a little disturbing. I do all I can to make my ideas direct and without any need to ‘paint lipstick on a pig’. The question voters need to ask themselves is, “Is this the kind of person we want for our Senator”?

Orwell and

A case of Orwellian Double-Speak:

The site is a part of the Fox Entertainment Group.

The first statement under their “Rule of Conduct” states:

“Welcome to Beliefnet! Beliefnet is committed to protecting a high level of freedom of expression, and to maintaining a welcoming and safe community in which that expression can flourish.”

They further state in their “Rules of Conduct”, “We will not censor members for expressing an opinion, within the limits of these Rules of Conduct.”

I posted the text of my blog,, on their abortion debate forum at The moderator, justme333, deleted my post stating, “Anti-abortion is not an acceptable term – the only terms that are acceptable are Pro-life and Pro-choice.” This rule was not on the overall “Rules of Conduct” but on the local “guidlines” post for the thread. After consulting the local boards “guidelines” I found this:

“With regards to this board’s guidelines, yes, they are the same as the old board.
The same guidelines apply for the new boards.
That terms describing the two sides of the abortion debate are limited to
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

After that, the same general Bnet Rules of Conduct apply just as on any
other Forum board.

But do realize that not all boards have individual board guidelines, only
certain boards which are not set-up to be a debate environment so are thus
considered a “protected” board where the local guideline would indicate such.
Or certain boards that are hot-topic debates like this one for instance.
Different boards may have different guidelines so on each new board, one
can find a sticky thread which should show in the title, “Local Guidelines.””

The main boards “Rule of Conduct” says nothing about “certain boards which are not set-up to be a debate environment so are thus
considered a “protected” board”

The thought police on this thread insist that everyone on the thread call folks against abortion “pro-life”. They further insist that folks do not use the term anti-abortion or anti-choice. Can we say – Christian censorship? I think we can add certain forms of Christianity under the totalitarian regimes that Orwell criticized in “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. Folks, this is a case and point why the dark ages are thankfully behind us. However, it still exists behind the curtains in certain fundamentalist, Christian groups. It usually just takes a little logic and facts to get them to show their true face. My preference would be to call the “anti-choice” movement “pro-death” because that is what I really think it is but in the interest of keeping the debate alive I call them “anti-choice”. I know they would love to get the double-speak points by having us call them “pro-life” but for reasons I have stated elsewhere on this thread, I think that would be like calling a circle a square and I would not want to propagate that highly deceptive mind think. These folks insist on imposing their god on the rest of us and are willing to go to any extremes to do it – remind you of other zealots? I love it when they get radical and lie, censor, act badly because it cuts through their “spiritual” façade. I have also officially registered a complaint with the main board but since we are talking about the Fox Entertainment Group I do not expect any action (prove me wrong beliefnet).

The moderator also stated that I could not have the links to my blog (in the original article) which I understand and would have edited out. justme333 stated he/she tried to edit out the links but when he/she saw the banned word speak violations (my embellishment) deleted the post.

If you would like to protest the thought police censorship at beliefnet you can send an email to:

If I hear back I will update this post.

Response to a Pro-Death Comment

This is my response to a Pro-Death comment submitted for this article:

House of Representatives Passes Sweeping Health Reform Bill

Original Comment:

“I just wanted to let the NEA president know that because of his arrogant opinion I am no longer a member of the NEA. I went to my local NEA office today and told them I no longer want to be a member of an organization who endorse people support socialist policies/agendas. My political and moral values are more important to me than anything in the world. I am so sorry that I was a member of an association that suppossedly pushes an agenda for kids but supports many political candidates who endorse killing babies in the womb (hypocracy) and makes a mockery of ideals of our founding fathers. By the way NEA make sure you push for print in all the future history books in schools throughout the USA, Im sorry…..the U.S.S.R (United States Socialist Republic), March 21, 2010, the day Constitution was ripped into shreads by the Democratic Party of America.”

My Response:

James 2:15-17 states:

“If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.”

If Jesus were here today he would add health care to food and clothing as it is certainly “things needful to the body”.

The commenter above needs to know that abortion is legal in this country and has been for quite a few decades.  Neither President Obama nor the rest of us are baby killers because mere cells are not human.  On the other hand, you kill young people because they certainly are human and since I am sure you voted for Bush and his 2 ridiculous wars you had a direct hand in killing innocent young people – you are a murderer IMO.  By the way, I did not get any choice about paying taxes for your stupid wars that killed our young people. 

 I also did not get a choice about Social Security, Medicare, drivers license, motorcycle helmets, increased taxes for booze and cigarettes but I understand that we all pay for these issues and I am willing to pay without calling my country socialist, fascist, totalitarian, etc.  You are not a patriot – you are only for this country when you get your way. 

You need to know that President Obama was elected by a majority of us to do the job he did on health care.  I will not even begin to tell you how enraged I was during both Bush and Reagan presidencies.  We the American people DO want national health care in this country and you were told when President Obama was elected and you have been told again with this bill so deal with it!  If you are so “pro-life” how can you fight against the millions without health care in this country and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that result for no care or inadequate care?  Before CHIPS and this bill you people would not even let us insure kids in this country!  You are already involuntarily paying for emergency room health care and will be paying much, much more in the near future unless something is done NOW. 

Don’t say you are “pro-life” when you fully exhibit hatred and violence for those that have already certainly been born.  You are pro-death and full of darkness and an evil god!  Go back to your cave and pray or slice up small animals or whatever you do!

The Greater Good and Scott Roeder

It seems to me that anti-abortion folks have an untenable position if they hold to the idea that some killing is ok.  I have debated abortion with many anti-choice folks.  I have never found one yet that took the position that killing any human for any reason was wrong.  Scott Roeder took the position that killing was ok in the case of self-defense or to protect “unborn children”.  Most anti-abortion folks will not go along with killing someone to protect “unborn children”.   However, most anti-abortion folks do believe in the concept of a “just war” and capital punishment.  In both of these cases they believe that it is ok for humans to kill others. 

In their view, God is good.  God is served in the case of a “just war” or capital punishment.  Therefore, killing in the case of a “just war” or capital punishment is the greater good – the greater good not by man’s standards but by God’s standards.  Many anti-abortion folks that have been around the block tend to resist arguing their point on purely religious grounds since they have been burned too many times with that argument.  They tend to take the emotional bashing, shame and pity method to make their point.   Nevertheless, when push comes to shove, their beliefs are really grounded in their religion.  In any case, the “greater good” argument works whether they are atheists are theists.  Since they believe that a greater good is served by a “just war” or capital punishment, the question is, “Why isn’t the greater good served by murdering an abortion doctor – if you believe that a fetus is a baby?”  How would you draw the line at saying killing an abortion doctor is wrong yet killing is ok in the case of a “just war” or capital punishment? 

I suppose if you are a theist you could maintain that the former is not God’s will while the latter is.  This argument will show itself to have more “subtleties” as in the case of Judas Iscariot cited further down.  So God appears to be more interested in killing “unjust” folks whether in war or in crime.  However, if you think that killing “babies” is murder, wouldn’t you also believe that it is “unjust”?  I suppose that if you question why one “unjust” act justifies humans killing humans but another “unjust” act does not, the theist would proclaim that we cannot know the mind of God.  But if we cannot know the mind of God how can they know the mind of God?  Well, they would say “faith”.  At this point nothing is left to be said since to question this “faith” means that you have no faith or at least not the “correct” faith.  In any case, it appears that there are various shades of faith. 

Scott Roeder’s faith told him it was ok to murder Dr. George Tiller.  The anti-abortion mainstream would disavow this type of faith and wash their hands of it (remind you of Pontius Pilate).  However, by intentionally slicing the kinds of faith so thin, don’t they share some complicity in this?  I have heard many of them (including Rod Dreher) write that they are not heartbroken by the death of Dr. George Tiller but condemn the action of Scott Roeder.  They have a very tight line to walk.  Ultimately, it can only be defended by appealing to their correct “faith”.  My question is. “How is this different from radical, violent Islam?”  They believe that they have the correct “faith” as well.  If everything boils down to the right “faith” then on the surface of it there is absolutely no difference. 

Here is another point – if you believe that Iraq or Afghanistan was wrong then you are in effect saying that those wars were not “just wars” and that your vote for the Republicans and President Bush was complicit in killing unjustly – or, murder (see ).  As anti-choice, the only way to justify your vote for President Bush is to insist that both wars were just.  This would also include all the post-born women and children that were killed in these wars which no one would contest are not human and that the vast majority was innocent and killed unjustly.  I suppose this also would boil down to not having the correct knowledge of God.  The point is, once one starts down this road the fine distinctions get finer and finer.  When a person like Scott Roeder can’t get too fine with his logical prowess he just believes that he is exercising his faith by killing Dr. Tiller.  He thinks he is simply braver with his faith than most Christians.  He has all kinds of rationalizations about his virtuous motives.  Most Christians that disavow his action would also suggest that God can use evil for his glory as in the case of Judas Iscariot.   

Judas Iscariot betrayed Christ.  Here is what the Bible says concerning Judas:

I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: ‘He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me’.  John 13:18

While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.  John 17:12

 Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.  The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”  Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?”  Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.”  Mathew 26:23-25

But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.  The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.  Luke 22: 21-22

Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.  Mathew 27:9-10

and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus  Acts 1:16

“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, ” ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, ” ‘May another take his place of leadership.  Acts 1:20

Judas was condemned for betraying Jesus and yet he was fulfilling the will of God.  This is how many anti-choice folks view the act of Scott Roeder. 

It seems to me that at some point we have to just state that “faith” and rationality contradict each other and “faith” wins at the cost of logic.  Even Kierkegaard who thought that faith was the absolute passion of pinning your eternal happiness on the contradiction of the God-Man would not pitch faith against logic.  He would simply suggest that logic is irrelevant for faith.  The square is not a circle in faith; it is just not relevant to that distinction.  However, in the case I am making, faith must conquer rationality and deem logic illogical by the “logic” of faith so the square is a circle.  Faith is another kind of logic that can contradict logic.  It is sort of like saying A is not A because of B.  If you have faith in B then your argument is proved correct.  However, many folks do not hear the voice of God in this proposition – only the confusion of man.

Christians still kill the innocent unjustly and still condemn those that they think do the same.  I believe this is the definition of a hypocrite.  It also shares a nasty complicity in the evil it condemns as the prophecy of God also shares an insidious role in the betrayal of Christ.  Thus, it seems to me that the violent history that marks the history of Christianity, the hatred of the inquisition, the genocide of the crusades still yells much louder in the anti-abortionists than the words of their Christ, “The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness.  Then watch out that the light in you is not darkness.”  Luke 11:34-35

Fallacies from Anti-Abortionists

Fallacy of Omission:


When anti-abortionists cite the Gallup poll below…

“More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time”

take a look at the whole Gallup poll:

 – you will see that since 1976 the averages have not really changed:  approximately 20% suggest that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances (currently 22%), 70% to 80 % since 1976 believe that it should be allowed in all or some circumstances (approximately 25%, currently 23%, suggest it should be allowed under any circumstances).  This trend has not changed.  Therefore, when folks describe themselves as “pro-life” they obviously do not mean that they are hard liners who do not approve of abortion under any circumstances.

Fallacy of Contradiction:


Here are excerpts from a discussion with Erin Manning, a hard core catholic advocate of anti-choice and an associate of radical right, extremist Rod Dreher. 

“It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers.”

“…on the death penalty, I accept Catholic teaching” which in effect means it is acceptable as a “last resort”.  She also stated, “I don’t generally support the death penalty in most instances, and also recognize a strict and limited definition of justifiable self-defense killing and just war.”

…need I add more?

An example of a loaded question:


“At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”

Rick Warren, Saddleback Church – `question’ for candidate Obama

To me, that asks the question, “When is a fetus considered human and as such get human rights?”.  What I hear in that question is, “When does [human] life begin?”  For those that are pro-choice a baby and a fetus are different.  “Baby” necessarily means “human” since a baby exclusively belongs to the category “human”.  There are no “babies” that are not “human”.   If the question is, “Do “babies have human rights?” – The answer is of course they do because they necessarily belong to the category “human”.  If this is the question, it turns out to be a very uninteresting question since it is a necessarily true, logical syllogism:

A is B. 

B is C

Therefore: A is C

All babies are human

All humans have human rights

Therefore: All babies have human rights

If this is the real question, it is an insult to Obama’s intelligence since denying it would mean you can not comprehend plain logic (otherwise known as stupid).

Here is the insidious part – anti-abortionists are really using code to plainly state (to the initiated) – you are a demon, you are evil because you kill babies and deny them human rights.  Those that are pro-choice do not think they are killing babies but anti-abortion code insist that they are and deny them a response that is something other than believing anti-abortion OR killing babies.  In effect, if you are not pro-life, you are a demon.  This forum was “suppose” to have the appearance of objectivity and fairness but as evidenced in this description it was a setup – just another opportunity to preach to the choir at the expense of someone with another legitimate point of view.   IMO, Republicans have been very successful employing this type of technique.  It usually just takes a little thought to show the clay feet on your evil demons.

Worse Than Fallacy:


The defense attorneys for the killer of Dr. Tiller, a Kansas doctor that performed abortions in Kansas, claim that the murder was a “Moral Murder”.   So these folks think that they can commit or condone or rationalize the murder of Dr. Tiller based on a kind of reverse moral murder – they think they are protecting babies.

Also, the Catholic Church has sanctioned capital punishment and “just” wars.  In this case, god has appointed a person to carry out his work – therefore, it is not murder it is an act of god.  So, these zealots think that god appointed this guy to kill Dr. Tiller!

It is ironic that Erin has regularly called pro-choice folks (and me) Nazis (Rod has never censored Erin for this).  The anti-abortion folks use it freely to describe you if you believe any kind of abortion should be allowed.  They say that you are a “baby-killer” and sanction your murders with your morality.  They claim that you commit genocide sanctioned by the state.

For your information the Nazis quickly banned abortions for the genetically pure and deemed it murder of babies. 

Are you starting to see how this works?  If so, take it to the voting booth.

Rod Dreher is a Liar

Unfortunately, Rod is a remote cousin of mine and someone I enjoyed debating with until he started lying about me to stop the debate.  It used to be that lying was not Christian but things change I guess.

While blogging at:

on a thread called:

Cardinal Egan: “I know what I saw.”

The full thread address is:

Rod Dreher has been a commentator at the National Review Online and the Dallas Morning News for many years.  He also writes in other conservative columns.  He has vehemently opposed abortion rights and is an extreme right-wing, conservative Catholic.  The blog mentioned above shows the picture of a fetus and references an article by the Catholic archbishop of New York.  In the thread there are also many more graphic pictures of aborted fetuses.  In the thread I argue with some of these folks about pro-choice.  If you read the thread you will see that at one point Rod accuses me of calling the person I’m debating with a fascist.  He censored the thread and asked me to leave the discussion.  I love to debate and have done it for years.  I have never called anyone a fascist which I regard as losing an argument.  Rod made this up, lied, so he could justify censoring the post.   The context of this post can be seen in the thread (apparently, the comments have been disabled now) but in summary Erin is trying to push the argument for choice into an extreme position characterized by, why not genocide if abortion is legal?  Here is the post that was censored:


Many of us have principles and the vast majority of us are not into genocide.  I think we have decided to kill innocent humans already born by democratic vote in Iraq and Afghanistan if you voted for Bush anyway.  You may have found some way to excuse yourself but many of us in this country and in Europe hold you responsible.  I did not condone those wars nor would I condone any killing of human life.  I would agree that there are times when it is necessary but we should be repulsed by it (if we really are human).  You seem to be content  to setup your own straw men to argue with but no one has even remotely stated what you said.  If you can push the argument in that direction you are right but most of us get off that train before it gets to the station.   Genes are not human life neither are cells.  Humans make decisions regularly about the viability of human life, i.e., capital punishment, “just” (or unjust) wars, euthanasia, etc.  Where the lines are drawn is always up for discussion.  There are no absolute, clearly defined rules for how we make those decisions.  Again, you have participated in making life and death decisions already if, for example, you voted for Bush.  I could just as easily push the argument to ludicrous extremes by asking you why you think you and your representatives are entitled to kill innocent women and children on Iraq and Afghanistan.  Is life and death a decision that you and your representatives made for others without their consent and without any culpability on their part?  The answer is obviously, Yes.  Therefore, according to you, if you draw the line at certain folks and not others why not ‘ol dad and inferior races?  Can’t you see how shifting the argument into all or none can equally indict you as well?  If drawing these lines make us guilty then we are all guilty – you too!  Your innocence is feigned at best and hypocritical at worst.  In any case, very few of us want to take joy in these decisions and fashion a fascist, god-philosophy about who lives or not.  To insist that one has to go to that extreme to do what all of us already are doing (whether we want to admit it or not) is to ignore the reality of the situation and engage in a dialog with yourself.  Maybe you can find a neo-Nazi group to have that discussion with but making the rest of us parrot those extremes is really only to discredit your argument.  I think most people know the difference between extreme ideologies and reasonable ideologies.  When you push it as far as you like you become a McCarthy and the rest of us walk out of the room.  I know you have lots of ways of justifying your intolerance but I, for one, hold you accountable and refuse your simplistic argument style.  Those of us that are pro-choice have principles that we believe are just as valid as yours.  We do not like abortion and would not think of becoming genocidal maniacs – that is really all about you Erin.”

Erin has also moderated this board and is very involved in the Republican, anti-abortion movement.  I saw at least one person that already protested the censorship (but it may be censored by now as well).  Beliefnet is a good, impartial site dedicated to fair and open discussion of religious, political and social issues.  Rod only runs one small portion of the board (crunchycon).  If you are interested in protesting this censorship I would invite you send a post to the link above (only email and screen name required) protesting censorship on this site from the right or engaging in the topic of the  thread yourself.  Let’s take action in whatever small ways we can folks!