pro abortion article fails to successfully oppose life

-In response to an article in a certain O-week magazine, p.43.

Dear Kathy

Many 10 year olds are, no doubt, annoying brats who, while we can give it cute names like “providing the necessities of life”, essentially leech off their gullible parents. Many elderly folk are similarly dependent upon others for various aspects quite fundamental to their continued life. And yet, some members of society would perhaps find it morally problematic if viable 10 (or 100) year old members of the human species were approached in their thousands by medical professionals and destroyed with the aid of chemicals or a process of cutting their limbs off and/or removing their not-fully-competent brains with a shiny kind of suction device. (That, my friends, was what I like to call understatement.)

Such expected respect is though, frequently not accorded to members of the species who have not yet proceeded from the birth canal or through a C-section. I appreciate there are various complicating factors in discussions on abortion, including the means by which pregnancy was achieved and precisely how intentional it was. However your article fails to mention such issues and skips straight to confusing a few important distinctions whilst failing to explain why the above anomaly, about whom we may kill in our society, exists. Further, you even claim that the foetus, according to science, that hallowed source of all true knowledge, is not alive. I realize that biology sometimes isn’t treated as a full science by, say, mathematicians; but it deserves a little more respect in this discussion. I note that you yourself correctly refer to a fertilized egg as an “organism” – in case you haven’t yet got my point, this would entail that the zygote and hence embryo is alive.

What’s more, we actually don’t need to discuss the soul, let alone substance dualism, to place some value on human life. Most atheists and other soul-deniers will hopefully agree with this; unfortunate history of the 20th century aside. Which all brings me to a second failure of your article: the foetus and embryo are in fact biologically human – given their genetic and cellular make up, what else could they be? A more relevant question in the literature is whether they are a person and in particular, whether they are the same person as the one who might later go to university and oh-so ironically argue for abortion. The debates continue (and it seems to me that most criteria other than the biological for granting personhood fail abysmally morally); but one position that is surely untenable, Kathy, is yours, for it is incoherent. An extra fun debating point for those of you who are particularly fond of female members of the species might be to consider the phenomenon of sex-selective abortion and infanticide in the majority world, including China. Do the maths; women have lost big-time through the popularization of abortion-on-demand (and especially by demand.)

Does this all mean that I oppose contraception? No and yes. The majority of students at Auckland who are having sex of whichever kind with each other wouldn’t be in the ideal world, for it works out best in a marriage relationship; but you don’t need to buy that to reject Kathy’s concepts, as the argument against abortion isn’t in the same moralistic boat. For if it is indeed true that, say, the morning after pill (sometimes an abortifacient drug) prevents the development of a potentially viable human life then we have a problem, divine revelation or not. And it actually doesn’t follow that individual gametes are worthy of the kind of respect accorded to people – briefly because, prior to joining up with a suitable partner, they’re not going anywhere – but after joining and implantation, unless something interferes quite drastically, they’re probably going to eventually pop out and one day be enjoying lives like ours; walking and talking and arguing about abortion. Sure, they need some help in the form of nutrients and the like to get where their biological programme is sending them, but as suggested earlier, the same is true of all developing humans. And unlike 10 year olds, they're pretty cheap to clothe.

The murder of abortion provider George Tiller may help to stir up the troops, but is not worthy of the central role given it in your pro choice drama. The murder has been condemned by major pro life groups all over the world. The term “pro life” may help to explain why this might be. Perhaps a cynical utilitarian argument could be mounted, suggesting that pro life logic results in Christians and their pro life friends killing those who ‘murder unborn children.’ But you would find that not many of us are in fact utilitarians; and I suspect the societal consequences of such a militant move would render any arguments in its favour moot. Killing people is generally a bad idea, which is the whole point really, isn’t it? If the realm of abortion is in fact the middle ground, it is an overly-dangerous place to be for young human beings and if you ever face the awesome responsibility of caring for such a person, I sincerely recommend looking into their little face with ultrasound technology and joining the side where life remains.

Kind regards,
André

defending Islam

Many prominent defenders of Islam do a spectacularly bad job of it. I won't go into the details, as there are thousands of sites out there with people who've looked into it all way more closely. But, if anyone thinks they've found really awesome arguments for Islam over against Christianity, you're welcome to let me know. My main issues relate to the highly selective (e.g. out of context) quoting of the Bible, Quran and hadith and quoting various dubious writings from Christians over the centuries as well as acts by Christians and people in the old testament as if all these were normative (e.g. King David's adultery. Anyone who thinks this was advocated needs some help in the analysis of literature; i.e. reading.) Also, attacking one supposed Christian argument, say for Jesus' divinity, as if it were the comprehensive case, seems to repeatedly occur.

Here's a couple of starters, just the home pages -you're welcome to follow whatever links:

http://www.answeringchristianity.net/ac.htm
http://www.defendingislam.com/

I apologise for conflict in some areas and some broken links. You will appreciate that I am not the creator of these sites! If you find something that destroys faith in Jesus as I claim to have, again, let me know.

candy from strangers

I have spent some time in recent days handing out flyers and candy on behalf of a certain collection of Christian groups on campus.

People's reactions intrigue me. Perhaps I should be studying psychology:

There are many keen for free candy from a stranger. Some are 'keen' to be polite, but others are, it seems, actually keen. I imagine I can pick some from private schools by their clothes, expressions and the fact they are too good for heart shaped lollipops (and/or religion) - but I'm quite likely wrong.

There are some folk who lower their eyes and scoot past, in the hope of not being accosted by a Christian; or maybe just potentially talked at for 1/2 a second by a fellow human being; apparently a dreadfully scary or probably-painful experience.

Some expect a 'catch', beyond being expected to take literature (flyers; info on the groups, hardly gospel tracts)

Some Christians aren't interested at all. I can sympathise, though I don't really get it any more.

Many politely reject, for whatever reason, smiling at our attempt to benefit them.

Many are confused at the number of keen Christian groups on campus and/or say things along the lines of 'oh, these are Christians.' Nah duh. Though I guess we could be a little more clear, like have large flashing neon crosses, Brian Tamaki on a loudspeaker etcetera...

A few are openly not interested, saying things which strike me as simply immature like "not a chance" or "definitely not", whilst striding past in their superiority. I almost find these people amusing, but really it's a bit sad, as if they did actually dare to pause, their confidence might be deflated a little. People in my group have heard exactly what you've heard and they're still more impressed by God. Oh and their grades are often better, in case you wondered.

Many are similarly not interested (a couple of science lecturers I noted) and just stride past wordlessly; they are on important errands and are well aware of the wiles of the religious. "Your candy embarasses me; I shall ignore it, or if it's in my face, wave it aside."

People who know me and are a little more interested than usual in avoiding me. Such people entertain me slightly; as if I, the introvert, would accost them in any individualised way anyway.

The Christians interested in the groups - often so hesitant; with you I empathise - it is a dangerous world out there, with all kinds of dodgy religious groups and places you won't fit in. The groups I am promoting don't fit into these categories, but how are you to be sure?

Intense non-believers who really want to know now what this group is about and what we would offer them. Rare but fascinating. Should I give you the gospel in 1 minute? Please let me know somehow.

Friends and acquaintances who aren't too ashamed to walk up and say "hi" - you people have guts! Don't you know that Christians are irrational, freaky and extremely dangerous when they gather together?

shelf space

http://xkcd.com/625/

I wish I had such a collection. I would read the books once; or possibly, just possibly twice, but that's not the point. Instead I have small portions of various popular geeky children/teenagers' series and too many random nonfiction books to fit on the shelf. And yet I order new boxes of books with my non-existent income (yay for the government) whenever possible and find it difficult to sell old textbooks, many of which I hardly even looked at... You can't sell books, you have to make a horde of them, or hoard them, for when all the libraries inexplicably close and you're suddenly needed by the universe - or maybe just for the sake of owning more stuff. So then I lend out books, which is too frequently about the same as selling them, you just don't get paid for it. Or I admit the futility of it all and just give them away.

" It depends what you mean by 'is' "

-Bill Clinton, on trial

But such phrases ("it depends what you mean by ...") were also made famous in the WWII era by the fascinating british philosopher and broadcaster CEM Joad (one of those philosophers who were ahead of Anthony Flew in terms of both time and level of commitment, in the realm of religious conversion. )

I S ?

But what does "is" mean anyway? If it means something like "exists" as I assume off the top of my head, then given the number of related words, it is amazing how often we talk about ontology in everyday speech, chatter and gossip. Philosophy is in fact for everyone, it's just that everyone doesn't know it.

10 poems in one

I'm not too interested in sorting them out into separate pieces, so read them at your own risk
Apparently poems should have metre or meter or somesuch. I'll try and keep it in mind for the next time.
I don't think I was on drugs when I wrote it; amoxycillin aside.


EGO

That all important ‘ego’
has up-and-gone
In the face of all the world’s scorn.
Perhaps it’s time to let the rest go too

The I is not eternal; not aimed at eternity
If its current destiny is burning; in entirety
Yeah, that’s right.
Check it out my reader

You say, “but G; it’s how I choose to roll”
Yet I say “bro, it’s Jesus who is in control”,
Those 'I’s ain’t gonna ‘roll’ no more
When they hear that knocking on their door
He coming yo way, tis time to get ready

You say “I’m into science - and reality”
“Stop pushing your impossible fairies at me”
But fair’s only fair, let’s say we talk about fear and evil
Then your Weltanschauung is going, right down the hill.

You play your Xbox & playstations while we see the collapse
of genuine nations; from poverty and corruption
But we’re only interested in our own stupidness
And this egotism, is gonna have consequences

Yeah, I’m talking about evil, screwed-up lives and sin
For that’s the kind of crap that we are all in
It’s actually about rebellion - against God. You say it’s
“not important”, but I suggest you’re damned wrong.

We’re not talking here about spilled drinks
It’s not about subjective opinions or what some fat white guy thinks
It is about the facts, which matter – like what kind of
relationship do you have with your Creator?

So, back on track let's talk about this 'science' – my question for you
Is not just how, but why it all works? Wherefore ought what we discover be true?
You assume certain axioms to get into this game
Well wake up and work out whose name these proclaim;
I say it all spells quite clearly, G-O-D; while yo' presuming so much
Only to gain inconsistent systems of so-called ‘rationality’

Such things do not hang in mid-air; that would simply look stupid
Someone bought this conceptual apparatus
But concerning these ideas, it wasn't you who paid for them
There is a far better grounding in the Person who made all this

So now, if I may briefly conclude:
Maybe yo' thinking that me talking bout this is kinda rude;
well, you chose to read it, so reap the results.
That's the way the world works; if you don't like it, you can revolt
Be another of the millions of prodigal daughters and sons
Yet if you do find yourself running, just continue to run;
Into the arms of the only forgiving one.

rap art - rapport - secret - support - 'sup?

When I publish an album of up-to-the-minute societal critique in the form of neo-90s-rap-rock, the title may very well be as above. Keep it on the down-low, if you don't mind. If I had more time, I could make the "I dude" look more like a microphone as well; or I could pay someone to come up with better ideas.

I'm in the process of working on some tracks; lyrically in any case - everyone knows the music can be chucked in later, using some standard formulae.

the-eh?-tree

Why a tree, Lord?

We see explained in
Deuteronomy (21: 22-23)
Whosoever be
Hung on a tree;
They are curs-ed

This is a harsh statement. Appropriate for the harshness of rebellion against God.

Whosoever in
Son of Man believes;
Raised for all to see (Num 21:8-9, John 3:14-15)
Above Calvary;
They are sav-ed

Our wrongs and sicknesses taken on, by choice; by the only one who could so choose.

Sin in first garden (Gen 3:6)
Washed from beyond walls (Num 15:35-36)
Of Jerusalem
Passover time now salvation for all (Exo 12:27, 12:43, 34:25, Psa22:27, Is43:6)
Bringing in shalom
The river still flows (John 7:38)
From God’s town, come down (Rev 21:2)

This is ridiculous. Appropriate for the ridiculous creatures we are.

From small seed can grow
A tree of great worth (Matt 13:32)
The Church has been such
And covers the Earth
They are bless-ed.

“Crooked souls trying to stay up straight… the shadow proves the sunshine” - Switchfoot

‘side city’s River
Sprouts the tree of life
Leaves of which provide
Healing for nations; (Rev 22:2)
They are lov-ed

This is the gospel; the whole story works together, scribed by the master author

today's news

Headlines from NZ herald. I spent way too much time on this. I also had one of my Christian poems from a while back to post with this, but it didn't work, so I'll save it. Turns out I have a couple. I haven't even looked through my scraps of paper yet - this blog could live on just those for a few months I suspect. But, back to the news - isn't it great?

odious little argument, breathtakingly fallacious

I have cut pieces from this short article from Feb the 3rd. Sorry for any copyright issues. I’ve had it around for a while and now I have time to insert my responses in a nice shade of blue. I apologise for the nastiness – Richard’s, that is. The main point is that it's more complicated than allowed for in the brief article from RD and his exaggeration is offensive. His article is in response to what seems a very mild pro-life advert screened during the "Superbowl" in the US.

Richard Dawkins:

I gather that Tim Tebow is extremely good at football. That's just as well, for he certainly isn't very good at thinking. Perhaps the fact that he was home schooled by missionary parents is to blame. ...
Versions of the Great Beethoven Fallacy are attributed to various Christian apologists, and the details vary. The following is the version favoured by Norman St John Stevas, a British Conservative Member of Parliament. One doctor to another:
"About the terminating of pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic. The mother tuberculous. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was also tuberculous. What would you have done?" "I would have terminated the pregnancy." "Then you would have murdered Beethoven."
It is amazing how many people are bamboozled by this spectacularly stupid argument. The claims are indeed false and I apologise for the gullibility of some well-meaning Christians in perpetuating it. There are however many cases with names and achievements less impressive than that of Beethoven, whose lives were/are nonetheless important. Richard reads his heroes’ (e.g. Peter Singer’s) writings on the topic uncritically and then amps them up; perhaps as he would have his fans do regarding his own. Setting aside the simple falsehood that Ludwig van Beethoven was the fifth child in his family (he was actually the eldest), the falsehood that any of his siblings was born blind, deaf or dumb, and the falsehood that his father was syphilitic, we are left with the 'logic'. As Peter Medawar, writing with his wife, Jean Medawar, said,
"The reasoning behind this odious little argument is breathtakingly fallacious . . . the world is no more likely to be deprived of a Beethoven by abortion than by chaste absence from intercourse."
If you follow the 'pro-life' logic to its conclusion, a fertile woman is guilty of something equivalent to murder every time she refuses an offer of copulation. If you made a habit of following Richard’s logic … well, first you’d be some kind of logic denier, second you presumably wouldn’t care hugely about meta-societal issues like this and thirdly you wouldn’t think much of the value of humanity over and above, say, chickens (our-man-(previously)-at-Oxford's actual speciality, originally at least; not, strangely enough, that his promoters make much of it.) Incidentally, 'pro life' always means pro human life, never animal life although an adult cow or monkey is obviously far more capable of feeling pain and fear than a human fetus. Oh, right, so it's the ability to feel pain and/or fear that indicates moral worth. If you're ever sedated Richard, just keep one hand locked-down tight over a kidney or your liver or whichever other body part seems most likely to be snatched; your future interests or capabilities will not be of concern. But the profoundly un-evolutionary (it’s a bit like being un-American, unhelpful or maybe unchristian, just way worse) –he actually means non-scientistic, but I’ll set that upside down and laugh at it later nature of this terminology is another story and I'll set it on one side.

Religious apologists are unimpressed by this kind of argument as, it seems, are most with brains and training who have thought about it, they say, there is a distinction between snuffing out a life that is already in existence (as in abortion) and failure to bring life into existence in the first place. It's not a distinction that survives analytical thought, however. Richard is an expert in analytical thought. Unlike (nontheist) Don Marquis. Look at it from the point of view of Tim's unborn sister (let us say), who would have been conceived two months later if only Tim had been aborted. Admittedly, she is not in a position to complain of her non-existence. Coming into existence in the first place is a usual prerequisite for being wronged. But then nor would Tim have been in a position to complain of his non-existence, if he had been aborted. You need a functioning nervous system in order to complain, or regret, or feel wistful, or feel pain, or miss the life that you could have had. This makes little sense. How can any dead person “miss the life they could have had,” given Dawkins’ views? Further, what counts as “functioning” – is minimal function sufficient? Presumably not, or else abortion would be kinda problematic! But if we want more, we’ll probably have to exclude some people; neonates, those in (even very temporary) comas (or perhaps those asleep or unconscious when murdered, as they couldn't mind at the time) and those with brain diseases or mental disability. Dawkins and his friend Singer might not care, but most ethicists seem to, perhaps because they’re aware of the history of central Europe in the 1930s and beyond. Unconceived babies don't have a nervous system. Nor do aborted fetuses. As far as anything that matters [ooh, ooh – I know this one; wasn’t that ‘the selfish gene’?] is concerned, an aborted fetus has exactly the same mental and moral status as any of the countless trillions of unconceived babies. This is bullshit. Not only is it extremely offensive to me (which could have some relevance, as it indicates that I at least place a value on these lives), but very few ethicists would accept this hyperbole. An aborted foetus has the exact same status as nothingness? No moral status? So I can use a stock of them in engine fuel or floor or toilet cleaners and no-one’s allowed to get upset? (An unnamed secular ethicist apparently listed the first two as things which foetal tissue could not be used for; not sure of reference) As mental status seems to equal moral status, your dead Grandma is out of luck too; the gold teeth are coming out and then we can auction off whatever’s left, along with plenty of people (oops, I mean ‘objects’) in rest homes and the like. At least, that is true of early abortions, which means the vast majority. Later ones are generally only (at maximum) allowed to be eaten, e.g. fried in butter – but the developing intestines can be used to clean the floor if you like.
The fact that the Tim Tebow advertisement is a load of unthought-through nonsense is no reason to ban it. Imagine the consequences of banning unthought-through nonsense. Just imagine! That would infringe our valued principle of free speech. All the result of atoms jiggling around in the brain of a ‘higher’ ape. The best that the rest of us can do is point out, to anyone that will listen despite our lack of money The RD Foundtn for Reason&Science had a spare ₤180k last year. Yes, I checked. to pay for such advertisements, There are others not short of money when it comes to promoting abortion; Planned Parenthood in the US for example that it is nonsense. As I have just done.

Hill William Musicality

[Image courtesy of Wikipedia]
A fair amount of mainstream stuff is being sourced from the garages of the quaint rural huts where Christians are to be found living with their 30 children (and general lack of knowledge and fun.) Some of it hardly needs naming, but: One Republic, The Fray, Owl City, Paramore, Jordan Sparks, Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, Daughtry, POD, Switchfoot, Stan Walker, as well as Miley and the J-Bros of course. Classics like U2 and Dave Dobbyn remain and may have got more openly Christian. In NZ, little bands like Kingston, the Frisk and Late 80s Mercedes all have followings. Then there are the nominals like Kanye and Scribe, which make things interesting. I love how Scribe used his thanks speech at the Tuis (I think) to say something like “He took the machete out of my hand and replaced it with a mic and I’ll always be grateful” while Prime Minster H-C stood beside him on the stage baffled. And “Jesus Walks” is awesome.

My point? I’m not sure. It’s not like many of the radio-played songs from these artists push Jesus, or even the other songs on their albums (exceptions POD, maybe Switchfoot & U2), it’s just a pleasant surprise to eventually hear an artist being played somewhere, after having been playing on Christian radio for a while – a few NZ ones come to mind. With a couple of unfortunate exceptions, the messages in these songs are different to what would be found elsewhere. There’s another stream out there, way too hard out for MTV or C4, which is also improving in quality. This seems to include all Christian rap. Check out, on you tube, “Lecrae”, “Trip Lee” or from NZ, “Rapture Ruckus”. A good example: Real Vision - Trip Lee ft. Tedashii

a product of mild delirium and ghosts of philosophy exams past

Dear Mr Clock

Too much time on your hands?
I often see you hold
Right on 3:33
It soon becomes quite clear:
You’re softly mocking me.

If we could understand
The passage of our time
We might control your run;
Force some explanation

Tick, tock; the clock stops. Dead.
Just threatening. This time.
I’ll happily take ‘slow’;
At least with that you know
Exactly where you’re going.