Not just aborting babies with Down’s syndrome – Dawkins supports infanticide

Listen up you atheists, the Pope has spoken
Listen up you atheists, the Pope has spoken

The UK Telegraph reports on the latest Dawkins blunder.


Richard Dawkins, the atheist writer, has claimed it is “immoral” to allow unborn babies with Down’s syndrome to live.

The Oxford professor posted a message on Twitter saying would-be parents who learn their child has the condition have an ethical responsibility to “abort it and try again”.

His comments were dismissed by charities and prompted fury online from opponents but he insisted his stance was “very civilised” because foetuses do not have “human feelings”.

He claimed that the important question in the abortion debate is not “is it ‘human’?” but “can it suffer?” and insisted that people have no right to object to abortion if they eat meat.

[…]Anti-abortion campaigners describe the practice of aborting foetuses on physical grounds as a form of “eugenics”.

But Prof Dawkins strongly defended its as simply standard practice and ridiculed his critics as portraying him as “a horrid monster”.

The row erupted during a debate on Twitter about calls for further changes to Ireland’s abortion laws in the wake of the case of a rape victim who was forced to carry the child until she could deliver by caesarean section.

One participant said they would suffer a real ethical dilemma if they were carrying a child with the condition.

Prof Dawkins replied: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

Another pointed to recent figures asking: “994 human beings with Down’s Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012 – is that civilised?”

He responded: “Yes, it is very civilised. These are foetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings.”

I’m really not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Dawkins is an atheist and as such, he has no rational grounding for objective moral values and duties. He also does not have any rational grounding for free will, which is required for making moral choices and bearing moral responsibility. To an atheist, what people ought to do is decided by conventions and customs that vary by time and place. There is no objective moral standard for the way humans ought to be. Dawkins is an evolutionist. He believes in survival of the fittest. The unfit should die – if necessary, directly at the hands of the fit.

Listen to what he writes in his book:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

–Richard Dawkins, (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

I’m not misrepresenting him – the man is a very consistent atheist, and there is no room for morality on atheism. It’s not rationally grounded.

Here’s how far Dawkins takes his view that there is no evil and no good:

Richard Dawkins explains morality on atheism
Richard Dawkins explains morality on atheism

But wait!

He goes even further than mere abortion – he also supports infanticide:

Richard Dawkins even advocates for adultery. So I’m really not sure why people are so fascinated by atheism, when this is the kind of person it produces.I am not saying that every atheist is going to treat morality as all personal preference and social convention. Just the ones who really understand it, and are consistent with it. Real atheists don’t have any rational grounding for morality in their worldview. This man has 1 million twitter followers. He is their spokesman because he reflects their views.

And finally, in the past, Dawkins has expressed that his goal is to destroy Christianity. Is this the same kind of destruction of Christianity that his fellow atheist Stalin wanted? Given Dawkins views on murdering innocent unborn and born children, I think we can infer what he means by “destroy Christianity”.

By the way, Nick Peters has also written about Dawkins’ comments, and I stole the image of Pope Dawkins from his post.

84 thoughts on “Not just aborting babies with Down’s syndrome – Dawkins supports infanticide”

  1. I’m almost inclined to say that all this popularity among the atheist community has gotten to his head. This could simply be some cheap stunt to keep him ‘relevant’. I’m sure it is in correspondence with his views – that fact that he said it on such a public platform is what makes me suspicious.

    1. This did occur to me also. Every now and again Dawkins appears to have a conveniently bizarre outburst like this. Still, I can think of less self-defeating things to have a public meltdown over. Statements which stink of eugenics don’t generally go down too well in public discourse.

      1. Give it a year or two. He’ll run out of outrageous things to say so he’ll resort to “Firefly deserved to be cancelled,” “Jar Jar Binks was an excellent addition to the Star Wars franchise,” and “The Hunger Games were deeply insightful and poignent” to get attention.

          1. Considering Dawkin’s followers believe asking “Who designed the designer?” is a knock-out argument against theism and think fedoras and cargo pants are high fashion, I’d say the big D is going to have a very comfortable financial future.

    2. I argue with Dawkins clones every day, and they are deadly serious about their viewpoints, so I imagine that Dawkins is as well. His popularity is absolutely real. There is an army of young men on Twitter #atheists frantically trying to sound just like him, use the same arguments he uses, and to a Christian these viewpoints seem awful and ludicrous. But they are serious. We need to pray for them.

      Dawkins is a Sophist. Sophistry is reasoning that appears sound but is misleading or fallacious.
      Aristotle defines sophistry as “wisdom in appearance only.”

      So they take what we believe as Christians and just plain mock it, thinking that is an argument. They refer to God as a “sky fairy.” And do you believe in a “sky fairy?” I don’t. But when they describe our beliefs that way it sounds like what we believe IS ridiculous. I always tell them, “I don’t believe in a sky fairy. If there was a religion that believed in a “sky fairy,” I would agree with you atheists 100 percent that it is ridiculous.” God bless you. Susan Fox

    3. I am inclined to believe this is more an effect of allowing Dawkins to just talk long enough for his true beliefs to come out.

      What baffles me is how someone can spout objective moralities, while professing a religion (atheism) that cannot ground them.

  2. Dawkins: “Unborn Children are Pigs.” Perhaps he speaks of himself? That would make a lot of sense. A person who is really a pig in disguise would never consider women or men (victims of adultery), nor children (victims of infanticide), nor unborn children (victims of murder in the womb) to be human beings. No he would regard all as pigs equal to himself. “Oink, oink,” he would say. “It’s just luck that I can live and thrive in this world. I was destined for the chopping block. I was to be unborn pork chop, but lucky me, I lived! Unlucky you, you did not!” And what would he say of the children beheaded by ISIS? “Oh too bad. Wrong place wrong time. Lucky me. I’m not in the Middle East. Unlucky them, turned into pork chops.”

    Gag me with a spoon. I want to vomit. I guess the secret of this man’s evil is that he does not know himself as a human being. He thinks he is pork chop. No one can really know his “self” unless he is firmly grounded in a relationship with God. Otherwise we are all pork chops. God bless you. Susan Fox

  3. The “Pope Dawkins” picture is priceless, although some Catholics will be offended. Of course, a-theists like to point to the pedophile priest problem in the church as “normative” to Catholicism and Christianity, but here we have “Pope Dawkins” weighing in on this behavior as well:

    He also argues that a little racism isn’t bad. When it comes to morality, all a-theists can learn from Dawkins: don’t condemn ANY behavior, because it is like condemning chocolate ice cream in favor of vanilla. But, remember: that means you cannot condemn us Christians either, calling us names and questioning our morality – that would be self-refuting. On the other hand, if you want to sit in the lap of God to slap His face, we are happy to bring you along. Let us begin with Genesis 1:1. :-)

    1. I’m Catholic and I am not offended by Pope Dawkins image. He has put himself in a position of absolute authority. Now popes really regard themselves as brothers with the other bishops, and it’s a secular view that our pope is all powerful. If he was we wouldn’t have had the priest sex abuse crisis my friend. Certain bishops are responsible. We are weeding them out. God bless you. Susan Fox

      1. There are far fewer apostate bishops in the Catholic church than there are apostate bishops, “priests,” and pastors in the Protestant ones. :-)

  4. To begin with, I am a pro-life atheist.

    But, from a strictly rational point he is correct, the killing of a feotus is just like cutting off a cancerous growth. And as long as we kill cattle and swine for food we have no logical leg to stand on to complain about infanticide. From the pain and suffering standpoint the cattle experience pain and suffering but the feotus does not. Plus terminating a Down’s syndrome pregnancy will prevent a whole bunch of pain and suffering. Now to throw the religious component into the mix atheist will say that from the feotus’ position dying and not experiencing pain and going to heaven is a win win all around. You theist will say that we don’t have the right to make that decision. The atheist will return with – right and wrong are just conceptual thing that don’t actually exist.

    I don’t want to come off as being cold and indifferent, I am just stating the arguments. I really am on the pro life side of the argument. My only reason for being pro life is because life is one of the most fantastic trick of chemistry. It is an unbelievably awsome process that achieves consciousness from nothing but quarks and electrons. And I think that for the most part that process should be cherished and somewhat protected. Of course in the case of cancer, “Die, die, die you pesky little buggers!”

    1. “The atheist will return with – right and wrong are just conceptual thing that don’t actually exist.”

      Indeed, and I think this is where the battle lies. Is there such a thing as objective morality? Just about everyone (notable exception being sociopaths) believes there is, or at the very least, behave as if they believe there is.

      1. Objective morality is what it comes down to.

        As an atheist I say that objective morality is an elusive goal that is slipperier than a greased pig. I know that I have morals of my own choosing and I have morals that were taught to me, and I have morals that society teaches me, and I have some aspect of morals that are incorporated in me at the DNA level due to evolution. But each of these types of morals can be changed, even the DNA type as you have mentioned yourself i.e.phycopaths and sociopaths. So which kind of morals are objective if they all can change?

        The bible is full of examples of shifting morality. Thou shall not kill – except when ordered to kill all of the folks in the next town. Or sending your daughter out of your house to be raped and killed so that your guest can avoid being raped an killed. (Every time I read that chapter I wonder what the moral of the story is. Maybe it is -don’t have a heartless soul for a father!)

        1. Correcting you is becoming a full time job. Basically, everything you believe is wrong.

          For example, on the thou shall not kill, you’ve misquoted the Bible. The actual phrase is “thou shall not murder”, and this is what Jewish scholars translate the original as well as Christians:

          Again, nothing in the Bible is any concern for you, because you cannot make moral judgments as an atheist. The best you can do is say that some societies accept X and some societies don’t accept X. In your view, rape, widow-burning, slavery and genital mutilation is just like driving on the left or right side of the road. Some societies like it and some don’t. And that’s atheist morality – it’s all convention, no objective truth.

          Regarding evolutionary origins of “morality”, see this:

          1. It is my position that there is no objective morality. And I think that you use an old book to base your morality on but it is not objective. You are just telling yourself that it is. I think my position of not killing anyone is of a higher standard than your not murdering anyone. So why am I the one, without an objective moral standard, the one with higher morals?
            As for the evolutionary roots of morals I am sitting on the sidelines waiting for the dust to settle. ( I personally think that evolution plays a part in morals, I just don’t know how much of a part.)

    2. Well, I am glad you are pro-life.
      Thank God for that. I hope you remain pro-life on the issue of the Down’s Syndrome baby, otherwise you are a cold and indifferent person. I have friends with Down’s children, and they are a great source of joy and happiness in their family. They usually come in big families and there are lots of aunts, uncles, siblings and Catholic Church friends to help care for them. They lack for nothing and neither does their family. However, if you are an atheist, you really haven’t got any reason to be pro-life except your own whimsical feelings. I hope those grow. God bless you. John K. Susan Fox

      1. I will probably remain an atheist until some verifiable evidence comes along. Be thankful for “whimsical feelings” without them we would not have music or art or the occasional pro life atheist.

          1. Logic is a tool. Logical systems can be constructed that do not mirror reality. If the logic mirrors reality I would certainly look at it. Metaphysics is a tool also but the funny thing about it is that when a metaphysical concept actually mirrors reality then it stops being meta and just becomes physics. So my answer is I will wait until the meta switches to actual physics.

          2. “Logical systems can be constructed that do not mirror reality.”

            In which case they are unsound logical systems and should not be heeded. But to determine that, you have to interact with the claims made in the logical systems, rather than reject them on the grounds that someone has been wrong about something at some point in time, therefore I might be wrong, too.

            “Metaphysics is a tool also but the funny thing about it is that when a metaphysical concept actually mirrors reality then it stops being meta and just becomes physics.”

            I see you’ve watched the Carroll-Craig debate. Metaphysics operates at an order higher than physics and pertains to why we’re able to do physics in the first place. Physics must assume metaphysical principles in order to get moving at all. After all, in order to study the universe, you must be sure you have a universe.

        1. If you continue to refuse to ask God for a sign of His existence, you will receive no evidence. There is none except that you have the ability to think, reason, love and you are not a meat puppet, or arguing with anyone is useless. Whimsical feelings and art are a demonstration that you are made in the image of God. He liked to create. I like to create. You are fascinated with life. God bless you. Susan Fox

          1. If I have no evidence of someone’s existence why would I send them an email? Let’s say you tell me there is a guy in Boston that has the ability to walk through walls. This is a somewhat fantastical claim. So at first I don’t take your word on it. Then I ask around an some folks tell me that they know of the guy but the more I investigate it seems that no one has actually seen the guy and there is no actual proof that the guy exist, no video, or photos, nada. So I ask again, should I send him an email or call him or travel to his house? Especially since I don’t have his house address or email address or phone number. You are right that I won’t receive any evidence because he doesn’t exist. And if he does exist and still keeps himself hidden why not let him have his privacy? If he wants me to know him the he will make himself available. But I don’t have to incorporate his existence into my belief system. I can go on with my life without ever meeting the guy from Boston that can walk through walls.
            The likelihood of a guy in Boston that walks though walls is just as likely as the God of the bible. None of you will loose any sleep tonight about the Boston guy.

          2. “If I have no evidence of someone’s existence why would I send them an email?”

            Have you interacted with any of the evidence for God’s existence? This is an apologetics blog, check the archives.

            “The likelihood of a guy in Boston that walks though walls is just as likely as the God of the bible.”

            Our wall-walker from Boston didn’t bring the universe and everything in it into being, you’ve set up a false comparison and are ignoring evidence.

          3. WordPress will not put this reply in the right place.

            To Jason below: any comparison I create would be a false comparison in this situation, so cut me some slack.

    3. John K, you say: “To begin with, I am a pro-life atheist.” Congrats on being one of the rare 3% – you are the first I have met! I realize that you are giving the arguments for the pro-death a-theists and other pro-deathers. You should know that the responses to these are quite trivial intellectually; nevertheless, I shall supply them as a review.

      One argument for the pro-death a-theist that you offer is that “the killing of a feotus is just like cutting off a cancerous growth” That is true only in a surgical sense, not a moral one. The pro-death a-theist needs to recognize the difference between a human being (feotus) and human tissue inside of a human being. “Clump of cells” is so 1960ish, from a human biological standpoint. But, pro-deathers are not known for their science.

      Another argument you provide for the pro-deather is: “From the pain and suffering standpoint the cattle experience pain and suffering but the feotus does not.” Pain sensation does not determine a human being (or a cow). If it did, then it would be fine to kill an anesthetized human being.

      Another argument you supply for the “dark side” is: “Plus terminating a Down’s syndrome pregnancy will prevent a whole bunch of pain and suffering.” This is one of the big lies of the pro-abort movements, and they also apply it to abortion-minded women of poverty. First of all, the pro-abort is not God, so they cannot predict “future pain and suffering.” Secondly, and more importantly, if this were a valid moral criterion for abortion, then ALL humans should be aborted, since ALL humans experience “future pain and suffering.” In fact, ALL human beings outside of the womb should be killed to “prevent future pain and suffering.” And, believe it or not, there are some radical earth-worshippers who would go right along with that sentiment, not recognizing its self-refuting (self-destroying?) nature.

      The best way to get the pro-death a-theist is the STR way. Ask them two questions:

      1. Do human beings have intrinsic moral value?
      2. Is what is located in the post-conceptive womb (zygote, embryo, fetus) a human being?

      It is interesting to see the replies to that. When you see a pro-deather answer “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second, you will understand why they use the term “fetus” instead of “human being.” Usually when one points out basic human biology to them, they revert to the zygote issue, but that doesn’t help them rationally. It just makes them feel better, because the “who” that they are killing is smaller. :-)

      God bless you for being pro-life, John K!

  5. I wonder if people like John K and Dawkins would find it morally permissible to eat fetuses, since it would be just like eating a pig or a tumor, apparently.

    1. The neural pathways do not form until a specific time in the pregnancy.

      So Rabbit that is why you have to eat them when they are just little wee things. Plus you want to eaten before the bones form.

      Honestly folks atheist don’t eat babies. (When will that meme die?)

      1. “Honestly folks atheist don’t eat babies.”

        Nobody ever said they did. Given that atheists can’t rationally ground objective morality, the question isn’t that they eat babies, but whether or not they’d be okay with people eating babies.

        “(When will that meme die?)”

        When atheism is able to come up with a rational grounding point for objective morality.

      2. Sorry, but in China, the atheists there consider unborn children to be a delicacy. And I read the children do feel pain in the womb when aborted. Read “Unplanned” by Abby Johnson, she became ran an abortion clinic until she saw an unborn child on an ultrasound trying to escape from the knife that would cut him to pieces. She was so horrified she became pro-life and quit her job within a week.

      3. Like Jordan said, I didn’t state atheists do eat fetuses, but asked if they’d be okay with people eating them.

        The common pro-choice argument is that fetuses are only “potential” human beings, and no different than any other part of the human body that contains DNA, such as fingernails, warts, scabs or sperm, none of which are illegal to consume.

        I was merely curious if there exists a non-hypocritical atheistic argument against consuming fetuses.

  6. I do want to know what the rational for a Christian being pro life and pro death penalty? It seems to me that such a person is admitting that justice may not exist in the after life. I mean if God is going to hand out justice why should we? I know that the overwhelming majority of executions are not for justice but for revenge. But don’t the people that are pro death penalty see that they are basically admitting that they don’t think God will get it right so they want to enact their justice/revenge during this life time. I think this is one of the biggest red flag that shows that the majority of the people don’t actually believe in God. Another big tell is that most folks are safety minded. Seat belts, airbags, bike helmets, etc. If folks really thought the big guy is watching out for you, and has a place waiting for you in heaven, why the safety gear? Why not just live your life and if that drunk guy hits you head on – poof you get a harp and some wings.

    1. Well, this is really quite simple. Christians oppose taking the life of an innocent person, but we support taking the life of a guilty person – a person guilty of the most heinous crime. Can you understand the different between an innocent person and a person convicted of multiple rapes and murders? The justice is for the family of the victim and to deter others who may be contemplating such crimes.

      See this:

      And this:

      1. There is no evidence that executions deter crime. Why can’t the family wait until the perpetrator dies of old age and allow God to exact justice? Since we can not always know if someone is innocent or guilty why not let the all knowing God make that determination. We have executed a boat load of innocent people. Not more than a week goes by and you see in the news a story of someone released from prison after being wrongfully convicted. So I would think that any reasonable Christian would wait it out and let God decide. (Lock the person up of course but don’t punish them or execute them.)

        1. So far, I think every single comment you’ve left in any thread on my blog has been completely wrong, and I’m batting a 1.000. You keep asserting things without evidence, I keep denying them and supplying the evidence. I am beginning to wonder if you are a Christian setting me up to whack these out of the park or something. (If you are, stop – it’s bad for my pride)


    2. (This ended up in the wrong place – sorry, WK. :-()

      John K, the “why are pro-lifers against abortion and for the death penalty” argument has two fatal (pun intended) flaws:

      1. Many pro-lifers are against the death penalty. I am 100% certain, as WK has shown, that the Bible supports the death penalty and that it IS a deterrent, but much less certain that the State can carry it out properly. I actually prefer placing them in their cells, giving them a Bible and no other book (no porn magazines or cable, like they get now), piping some great traditional Christian hymns into their cell, and letting a prison ministry come in to witness to them. Regardless, the death penalty is fully warranted.

      2. Nevertheless, the REALLY crazy position is to be AGAINST the death penalty for convicted mass murderers and FOR the death penalty for innocent defenseless babies. Now, that position demands an explanation. Because so many godless liberals adopt this indefensible “moral ethic,” I believe this is proof that Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse are correct when they say that the intellectually honest a-theist cannot ground objective moral values and duties. If they could, their moral compasses would not be spinning like roulette wheels.

      1. I absolutely agree that the pro choice / anti death penalty folks are off their rockers. That is a supper bizarre position to defend.

        I do want to clarify that my pro life position does not include making it illegal to get an abortion, rather I would like to see society work vigorously towards changing the mindset of everyone to a mindset of cherishing life. If all of society was of that mindset then there would be no one that would ever consider having an abortion. But before that day comes society would have to create an environment that removes all of the stigma of unwed mothers. As well as ensuring that every child has a warm an welcoming home to be raised in. This would require a Herculean act to achieve this utopia, so it is unlikely to happen.

        Even though I don’t think that abortion should be outlawed, I don’t want tax money paying for them. And I really think that it would be best if humanity change it’s mindset to that of one that makes abortion unthinkable and undesirable.

        The reason I have such a view point is because I don’t think you can legislate morality. It is better if everyone makes the right moral choice on their own. Of course this is utopian pie in the sky thinking but I think it is a decent philosophical position.

        Value life and there will be no abortions.
        Value this life because it is the only one you get.
        Value each choice you make because do-overs are rare.

        1. So, if we can’t legislate morality, should murder of born people be illegal? Or what about rape or theft? Why not make those things legal and just work to teach society not to do them?

          I’ll give you a hint why that isn’t a good idea: Human nature. Utopia will never be reached here on earth because humans are inherently flawed, morally speaking. You can’t simply teach people not to do bad things. People have desires to do bad things. You have to make it in their own self-interest not to hurt other people or they will continue to do it.

          The main reason abortion should be illegal is that it is government’s duty to protect the rights of all people. Since the unborn are human individuals with human rights, government has a duty to protect their rights by making it illegal to kill them.

          In addition, the law is a great teacher. One way you teach society to value life is by having laws that penalize killing. A lot of people think that if it’s legal, it must be okay. You’ll never teach society as a whole that killing the unborn is wrong or to value unborn life while keeping abortion legal.

          1. I think I watched way too much Star Trek as a kid. I totally agree we need laws but I think that it would be cool if we could also raise our value for life. I think one of the flaws with a lot of religions is the idea of an after life. This after life concept gives people a lower value on life. If this life is finite and there is no after life then folks would pay a lot more attention to each other and each and every one of their choices. If that concept would be prevalent throughout society then we would truly live in a different world than the one we do.

          2. “This after life concept gives people a lower value on life.”

            Uh, John K, you DO realize that the post we are commenting on shows an a-theist (who presumably does NOT believe in an afterlife) placing a VERY low value on life, don’t you?!? From 97% of a-theists being pro-aborts, to the “there is no right or wrong” comments by Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse, etc, etc, etc, I really do not know how much data it takes to completely refute the idea that those who believe in an after-life necessarily place a lower value on life. Now, back to your Star Trek. :-) (BTW, I love Star Trek too – the original series of course. WK is working on a post called Star Trek Morality for me. :-))

            I DO agree with you that those who place their faith in false humanistic religions (Islam, Hinduism, the cults, secular humanism, atheism, etc) may indeed put a lower value on life.

            (Please forgive me Lindsay, Jordan, and Rabbit for being the first to smack this softball out of the park, and please supplement what little I wrote here with your superior eloquence.)

          3. Your response doesn’t exactly address my points.

            Perhaps I can explain it another way. If you have a teen that is constantly breaking the rules, disrespecting parents, staying out too late, etc. – is that the time to decide to take away the rules and just hope they become good people? No! They have shown that they do not abide by the rules and are not being responsible. If anything, you might need to add more rules and enforcement to teach them to behave as they should. On the other hand, if you have a teen that always obeys and goes above and beyond the call of duty to act like a responsible person, perhaps you can start doing away with unnecessary rules.

            In society, which one are we right now with respect to abortion? Are we acting like responsible people who would never hurt the unborn and don’t need rules (laws) to tell us to respect and value life? Or are we currently disregarding the value of the unborn and destroying innocent children? Obviously, it is the latter. And like dealing with a rebellious and irresponsible teen, we must treat a society that is so irresponsible with life by adding more rules and enforcement until they learn to do right. We cannot do away with laws against abortion and expect anything but more irresponsibility with the precious life of the unborn. When we reach the point where society does value life and would never think of harming innocent unborn children, then we can talk about removing anti-abortion laws as being unnecessary. Until then, we need anti-abortion laws to protect the unborn from those who don’t value their lives as they should.

        2. Lindsay did an excellent job on refuting the frequently heard and nice-sounding, but equally false, notion that “you can’t legislate morality.” I believe that it was Norm Geisler who pointed out that morality is legislated every single day – each time a law is passed at the local, state, or national level. (I’m sure many have said it.)

          I DO agree with you that “changing hearts and minds” is one very worthy prong of the two-pronged strategy of abolishing abortion. The state level incremental legislative approach (bans past 20 weeks, etc) is reducing abortions thus far. IMO, so is the “hearts and minds” strategy, as measured in polling.

          Slavery took away a human being’s basic right to freedom, while abortion takes away a human being’s basic right to life. The former was abolished by Republicans, and the latter shall also be abolished by Republicans. (Democrats always show up much later to claim “We were on your side all along: vote for us! Here’s some “free” money to make you forget that we are consistently on the wrong side of basic human rights.”)

  7. Another interesting side note is that God might actually be pro abortion. How so you ask? Well most conceptions are terminated in the first few days. So it seems that God terminates more pregnancies that people do. If you do the math – natural abortions occur more than twice the amount of all the persons that have ever been born. More than two thirds of all people were never born. Heaven must be super crowded with souls that never got a chance to make a choice.

    Kinda weird when you think about it.

    1. God is not a human, he is the author of life and is allowed to take it for his own purposes. Also, naturally occurring deaths are not murder. Murder requires a guilty intent and a guilty action. When someone dies of cancer, it’s not murder.

      1. So God is held to a lower standard than you or me. It’s ok for him to kill willy nilly but if I go down the street and kill more than half of the folks I see then I am locked up. It seems like you give God a never ending stack of get out of jail free cards. I don’t know if you are aware that you can go to prison for killing someone with no intent. Killing and murder are for all intensive purposes the same thing, at the end of the day someone is six feet under, pushing up daisies.

        1. God is the Creator of life and as such, he has rights over his creation as the author of creation. You may not like it, but you didn’t make the show, sir. You are acting in it, but you are not the owner of the theater nor the playwright.

        2. “I don’t know if you are aware that you can go to prison for killing someone with no intent.”

          It’s a crime called “manslaughter” and carries a lesser penalty than intentional murder. Manslaughter deserves punishment, as manslaughter usually happens due to negligence, but not death. This issue has been encoded in various laws for thousands of years.

          “Killing and murder are for all [intents and] purposes the same thing”

          They are different by definition. Murder is the intentional taking of human life with no justifiable cause (like self defense) and the person who committed the crime must be removed from society in a manner fitting the nature of the crime. Manslaughter carries with it no intent to do ill will, it’s a very unfortunate bit of happenstance that often could have been prevented.

          1. Replying to both Jordan and Wintery Knight – so God can murder willy nilly but I can only kill in self defense? Each time God kills it is an intentional act, be it by bolt of lightning or natural abortion. Think of all of the billions of humans that have been murdered by God. You are saying that just because God is the first one to exist God is held to a lower standard. That doesn’t sound like a just system. It sounds more like a might makes right system. It is kinda weird that us puny humans have better sense of justice than the big guy upstairs.

          2. Correct me if I’m wrong, John, but that last comment sounds an awful lot like moral outrage at God for the crimes you feel He’s committed against humanity. That would rather strongly imply that you believe there is a standard of conduct that everyone should behave by, including God.

            For more on the moral argument, this is a good place to start:

            For more, check this blog’s archives.

          3. I’m not outraged I just think that objective morals should apply to all equally. Otherwize they are not objective. It just seems like a bit of special pleading – you want objective morals for some reason or other but you don’t mind if your God doesn’t follow those morals. Just seems weird.

          4. God, as Creator, has every right to destroy His creation if He chooses. Of course, He always acts justly and never destroys without just cause. But He does have the right to kill humans. We don’t have the right to kill our fellow humans because they belong to God, who created them. We don’t have a right to destroy God’s property. God hasn’t given us the authority to decide when someone else’s life should end. Only God has that authority. The concept of inalienable rights stems from the fact that we are the product of a Creator and that the Creator retains certain rights to His creation. The rights God has to His property (us) are seen from our human perspective as inalienable rights.

          5. This is the first time I have heard this argument expressed, and eloquently so, as one of property rights. Thank you, Lindsay – lots of Scripture to back it up, too! (“Bought at a price”, etc.)

          6. I guess we are all just property. Maybe that is why the bible never out rightly condemns slavery. Well fellow slaves I say we break free from the taskmaster and claim our independence. I don’t want to give praise to anything that thinks it owns me.

          7. John K, just consider the possibility that there is a Creator Who made all of His creatures, us included. IF that were true, then what sort of debt would we have toward such a Being?

            Now consider the fact that Kalam (combined with Big Bang and BGV), teleology (supported by numerous physical, chemical, and cosmological examples) and the moral argument clearly make my possibility quite plausible. Not certain of course, but certainly at least as plausible as “everything miraculously came from nothing, uncaused by anything, and life magically popped into existence when lightning hit some mud.”

            Given the reasonableness of Creation, you can now at least understand why Christians walk around in amazement over God’s Sovereignty and just the first verse of the Bible, much less all of the others. If our very existence is dependent on Someone that powerful, what kind of debt do we owe? This is why Christians LOVE the thought of being slaves to their Master and want to do whatever He desires! We are already His property, under my scenario, it’s merely a question of whether we reject Him or not. And He gives us that choice.

          8. Thank you, Lindsay – fantastic work! Keep it up and you two get writing that book. God bless!

          9. In response to the comment that the Bible never outright condemns slavery, I have a couple things to say.

            First of all, the “slavery” allowed in the Bible was a way of working off debt. It never turned people into property that could be used and abused. There were laws in the OT about what one could and could not do to a slave. These protections for slaves were unheard of in the ancient world where slavery was common and slaves were property.The Bible never condones the kind of slavery that existed in the US before the Civil War.

            Secondly, the concept of inalienable rights that I talked about, where humans are property of a Creator, does not in any way mean that humans are ever property of each other. In fact, the concept of inalienable rights is opposed to slavery. Slavery is a violation of the inalienable right to liberty.

            Here’s how it works. Because we all belong to our Creator, we don’t have a right to kill each other because to do so is to harm God’s property. But that inalienable right to live also entails some other rights. The right to one’s own labor is a logical progression of the right to live. If someone doesn’t own their own labor, they have no way of providing food for themselves and thus no way to continue living. How can anyone have a right to live if they do not have a right to keep themselves alive? Thus, every person has the right to work and own the fruits of their own labor in order to provide for their own continuing existence. The right to liberty is basically the right to own one’s labor. But if I have a right to the fruits of my labor, no one can rightfully force me to work without giving me the fruits of my labor (i.e. no one can rightfully enslave me).

          10. So we are God’s slaves and you are trying to justify slavery. Shame on you. Even if I was the nicest slave owner in southern Georga I would still be a slave owner. How dare you try to soften the concept of owning another person. “Working of dept” is not the only type of slavery in the bible. You need to read it again a bit more carefully. Haven’t you ever read the part about how hard you can beat your slaves? Or the parts where the chosen people killed everyone in the neighboring village except the young girls who after killing their parents they took them as sex slaves. You live in a Pollyanna version of religion if you think everyone in the bible treated their slaves as equals that just owed a debt.

          11. John, I never said that slavery, as practiced in the US and most of the world, was okay. That slavery is absolutely wrong and it is never okay to own another person. What I said was that Biblical “slavery” wasn’t slavery, as we think of it. It was more like indentured servitude where it was for working off debt. It was never one person owning another. It wasn’t a perfect situation, obviously, but God did provide protections for slaves within the Jewish nation.

          12. So Lindsay when a Jew took a young girl as a war trophy sex slave that is not slavery in the bible? I guess it is not slavery because it was sanctioned by God right? And when Saul sent his daughter out to be sexually assaulted and killed like she was just a piece of property to be disposed of any way he wanted, that was not slavery I guess? Wow, just how big of a lie will you tell yourself?

        3. John I’d recommend you read “Is God a Moral Monster” by Paul Copan about slavery in the Bible. Slavery isn’t the best translation for it, it was a debt relief program of sorts. You went into it voluntarily, it could never be forced and it was to pay off debts as equals. So if you want to say that’s false we would need some support of your claims because “Slavery” in Israel was nothing like the US slavery or any other country at the time of ancient Israel. If you hurt them in any way the servants debt was automatically forgiven and they were free of it and you were punished severely.

          1. Slavery comes in different forms. You seem to only have one form in mind. Check out the passages in the bible where it talks about taking the young girls as sex slaves after the Jews just got done salutering their parents. I guess that isn’t slavery in your mind. Or have you read about how hard you can beat your slave? You need to read all of the bible not just the feel good parts.

          2. I have and I’m afraid you have misread those portions. There were no sex slaves and if you beat your slave you were punished severely and the slave was automatically free and their debt counted as forgiven. Kind of like today how if you assault someone you can get a lot of money in a civil suit, except instead they had their debt forgiven. You were not allowed to beat your slave, please cite when you make accusations.

          3. John, it seems as though you’re morally outraged at the idea that Israelites took captured women as brides (not sex slaves like in Rotherham). But how can this be when you don’t hold to any objective standard of morality? How can you be logically consistent in your distinctly moral condemnation of what God has ordained and the Israelites have done?

          4. If I kill your parents and all of your friends and relatives I don’t get to marry you and call you my wife. I don’t know what kinda world you live in but I hope it is not anywhere I live. Stop trying to justify slavery.

          5. So, John K, should slavery be outlawed, under your view? Why or why not?

          6. Also you folks keep talking about slavery like it was some free trade agreement. Just how do you think folks got into the position of owing someone seven years of labor? How would someone argue that let’s say that they only owed 2 1/2 years of labor? You don’t seem to see this as a codified form of slavery. You folks don’t get it, people took advantage of other people and treated them badly and your god didn’t step in and say anything. Shame on you shame on your god!

          7. John 7 years was the max, no matter how much they owed. It’s quite easy to have that discuss when you are voluntarily agreeing to work to pay of your debts, as opposed to being forced into slavery like you still seem to think is happening. Often it was with their own family. Shame on you for trying to judge a culture and God and trying to falsely smear them rather than honestly seeking for the truth.

          8. Telling me I can’t send a Shame on You your way because I don’t understand a dead culture but you then send a Shame on You in my direction and you don’t understand me and my culture- that is irony meter overload! Thanks for the laugh! When I did a Shame on Your god I was mainly saying that your whole belief system is worthy of shame – your god might not exist but your belief system does and it deserves to be shamed when it’s followers bend over backwards to idealize slavery in a fairy book manner. Like Cinderella’s stepmother was treating her just swell.

          9. “Shame on you shame on your god!”

            Shaming someone requires an objective source of morality. Without that, your statement is meaningless word-salad.

          10. Well-said, Jordan! Besides, how does one shame a “god” that one says does not exist? Is this another of those “there is no God and I hate Him” moments?

          11. You are asking about objective moral standards. We’ll if you think you need a 2000 year old book to tell you how to behave I am sorry for you. There is nothing objective about morality – recent history should show you that. Society’s moral standard is actively shifting recently towards more decent behavior towards gays and more outrage towards child molesters. Society’s moral standards have flipped and flipped again on alcohol. And now Pot is shifting towards aceptibility. Just because you would like to have an objective moral standard doesn’t mean one exist. Your old book is just what the folks that wrote it thought morals should be at that time. There are three sets of Ten Commandments in the bible. Which set is right? Should I follow them as they where written or how we write them in American English? Cause the original ones say things like “thou shall not kill a Jew” and “thou shall not steal from a Jew” or “thou shall not covet a Jews property, his ass, his wife, his concubines…” Which would basically mean killing non-Jews is O.K.! Imagine the uproar if the Ten Commandments where to be put on every courthouse lawn with the original Jewish centric version chizzled out in English for all to see. Folks would Freque out!

            Long story short- no objective morals. If morals were objective they would work like the laws of Gravity and the Speed of Light, you might be able to bend them slightly but not break them.

          12. John, you say “Which would basically mean killing non-Jews is O.K.!” I assume that you believe that killing non-Jews is NOT OK? That sounds suspiciously like an objective moral standard, if I ever heard one.

            The bottom line is that your belief that morals are relative is quite unlivable. It works as long as it is the other guy who suffers, but once you are the one being mis-treated, all of a sudden there arises a demand of (objective) justice or (objective) righteousness. Such concepts do not exist on your view.

            Even more self-refuting is your statement: “We’ll if you think you need a 2000 year old book to tell you how to behave I am sorry for you.” It seems as if you are saying that we Christians who “use a 2000 year old book to tell us how to behave” are (objectively) wrong to do so, presumably (objectively) morally wrong? Who are you, as an a-theist, to preach to us? You are just a molecules-to-man, living out your years in the human jungle, praying (?) that you are not on the wrong side of survival of the fittest, and then on your way to eternal non-existence. What you do or say cannot possibly matter (even Bertrand Russell admitted this) in the long run, nor can what we do or say matter.

            And, if all you are saying is that society determines morality, then I am sorry for YOU. You would make a very good slave owner or Nazi under such a view.

            If morality is as relative as you say it is, then at least have the courage to join Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse in their nihilism to commit intellectual suicide:

            And to be consistent (which Dawkins is not), if morality is completely relative or illusory, then you don’t get to make moral judgments about others, including us “evil” Christians. What we are doing is merely our chocolate ice cream. Your favorite flavor, vanilla, is no more moral than ours – move along please. Otherwise, you come across as the typical self-contradictory a-theist who has to “sit in the lap of God in order to slap His face.” God bless Ya, John!

          13. Part of the reason we have had slavery and Nazis is because morals are subjective. If they were objective we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If they were objective every society would have the exact moral standards. They would be like laws of physics. They would be the same for all observers. They would be built into the fabric of the universe. Every plant and animal would follow them without even knowing why. That would be truly objective morals. Since the universe doesn’t work that way I guess we will have to make do with subjective morals.
            When Cain killed Able or who ever killed the first person, that act began the moral maze that we are on. When the first person stole a piece of meat started another branch of the maze. And so on and so on. We are an adaptive animal, we learn and pass on what we learn. Also DNA passes on some traits that are helpful for survival. So we have several things reinforcing our morals from one generation to the next.
            Some future culture will probably think that physically touching another persons face is immoral.

          14. We’ve entered a loop with no termination condition. The atheist effectively says “I don’t believe evil exists, but you Christians totally are!”

  8. When Richard Dawkins was just after Christians it was apparently okay, but now that he is showing his bigotry extends beyond them, suddenly his supporters are turning against him.

    1. Now, THAT is one brilliant observation – well-done and thank you for giving us that to use, 1peter315apologia!

  9. I don’t support Dawkins because I can’t. What saddens and slightly angers me are the many comments I heard from defenders of infanticide and the killing of unborn babies, the following three I hear the most.

    1. “Adult lives are infinitely more important.” Ego alert!

    2. “All species must act this way.” Sadly, infanticide and disregard for differences are common in the wild, but I have witnessed a mustang mare help rather than kill her foal, who often collapsed due to a limp rear right leg. I also recently read an article of a lioness who adopted five oryx calves in lieu of treating them as prey. I will honestly point out that the mare and the lioness indeed possess souls.

    3.) The most sickening defence, “it’s just nature doing ‘her’ job.” The babies did no wrong. Makes me want to punish the darned mistress! I believe that, if any innocent, young being is killed by perfectionist adults for “lack of fitness,” God takes care of these young souls, and we are to show respect.

    Isaiah 11:6 — words to live by.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s