One thing absolute "pro-lifers" forget

133 posts / 0 new
Last post
calhais's picture
I never used "comment" to

I never used "comment" to describe what you wrote.

Irrelevant; you wouldn't have to.

You sure English is your primary language?

Has anyone mentioned that you can be a jerk?

Only Absolutists do that.

Then you are an absolutist.

arakish's picture
calhais: Has anyone mentioned

calhais: Has anyone mentioned that you can be a jerk?

Plenty of times. If me wife were still alive, I'd tell you to ask her...

calhais: Do not lie.

arakish: Only Absolutists do that.

calhais: Then you are an absolutist.

Prove that claim (bolded text). Read my definition: Reference Link


calhais's picture
If, as you assert, only

If, as you assert, only Absolutists lie, then for all persons P, lies(P) if and only if absolutist(P). You lied. Therefore, you are an absolutist. If, as you indicate, you rather hold the definition you gave in the link above what else you said here, then you have made a stupid bother. I'll formalize it for you so at least you have a clear way to talk about your own thoughts. It's sloppy but accurate.

absolutist(P) if and only if X1(P) and X2(P)
| X1(P) if and only if P in K | K = the set of persons Pk such that Ir(Pk) | Ir(Pk) if and only if religious_member_of(r, Pk) for some r in R | R = {Judaism, Christianity, Islam}

X2(P) if and only if I(P) | I(P) if and only if P in L | L = the set of persons Pl such that Br(Pl) | Br(Pl) if and only if believes_in_inexorably(Pl,r) for some r in R [notice that for all r in R, believes_in_inexorably(Pl,r) implies believes_in_the_existence_of_a_god_or_any_gods(Pl)]

Under this definition, it is not clear how absolutist(P) if and only if lies(P). Since you haven't bothered to defend yourself, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that somehow, this definition implies that absolutist(P) if and only if lies(P). Atheists can lie; therefore, for some atheist A, lies(A). By your claim about lying, lies(A) if and only if absolutist(A). Absolutist(A) if and only if X1(A) and X2(A). X2(A) if and only if I(A), I(A) if and only if A in L, A in L if and only if Br(A), Br(A) if and only if there exists some r in R such that believes_in_inexorably(A,r). By the definition of the word, `atheist', atheist(A) if and only if not believes_in_the_existence_of_a_god_or_any_gods(A,r) for all r in R. Therefore, by the predicate equivalent to your old friend, the law of contraposition, there exists no r in R for which believes_in_inexorably(A,r). Therefore, not X2(A), and not absolutist(A). But it was already stated that lies(A), and lies(A) implies absolutist(A) is given by decomposition of the biconditional form. Therefore, by contradiction, either it is not true that lies(P) if and only if absolutist(P), or your definition of absolutist(P) is false. Notice that you are the source of both of those pieces: you gave both the claim that lies(P) if and only if absolutist(P), and the definition of absolutist(P). Since one of them must be false, you lied. If your definition of absolutist(P) fails, then you are an absolutist under some other definition of absolutist(P) because you lied. If, rather, your claim that lies(P) if and only if absolutist(P) fails, then your comment suggesting that I am an absolutist and possibly a liar was false, and, as a matter of nothing here, it was a non-fallacious ad hominem (fallacy requires argument, and you had given none).

arakish's picture
OK. You achieve a gold star

OK. You achieve a gold star this time. I should have stated it thusly:

Absolutists are incapable of speaking True Truth. Thus, they always lie.


calhais's picture
Trivially disprovable. Name

Trivially disprovable. Name an absolutist for me--someone who has published at least few sentences on the internet. Work with me here: the most expedient way to get at truth is to try to disprove your own claims.

Armando Perez's picture
The problem in the anti

The problem in the anti-abortion approach is that you want to equal potential with what is real in present time. Is like saying an acorn is the same as a tree. Both are parts of a life cycle but while we happily throw acorns away, people give a very different consideration and value to cutting a100 year oak. The acorn is a potential tree with all the 'oakness' of the tree but is not a tree, so we do not treat it as such. You do not harm a 100 year old oak tree to save an acorn. Apply it to the human embryo.

People often put pine seeds in salads. These pine seeds, if left by themselves can become many trees, a real pine forest which create a habitat for many other creatures. However, nobody will equal a bunch of seed in my salad with the whole ecosystem although the potential is there. A $100 bill in the stock market has the potential to become $1 million, however, put to choose nobody will choose a $100 bill even already invested in an optimum way in the market over 1 million dollars in stock value. An unrealized potential is not a done deal so it has less value than an already realized potential. Many people laugh when somebody throws eggs at a politician but nobody has had the gall to throw little chicks at anybody. They know nobody will approve. People know they are not the same. It is ludicrous to have the unrealized potential rights to supersede those of the realized entity.

An embryo does not have sensations or sentience as it does not have a nervous system and a brain. An embryo is not an independent socialized organism, something that is necessary to be a full human being. An embryo is part of the mother body in the best of cases or it can be considered a parasite in the worst case as it uses the resources of the mother body to survive. Giving all this, the mother should be able to refuse to share her resources (as the body is the ultimate private property) with the embryo and will not be killing a human person but an embryo.

Once this is clear, one can understand that the origin of that anti-abortion position comes from thinking that there is something outside sentience and biology that makes us human and that ‘essence’, is what is called a ‘soul’’ even though they avoid that word as much as they can in an argument. A soul is a religious concept because its existence is based on faith, it cannot be proved objectively.

On the other and more matter of fact hand, there are stages of development in humans and we all agree they do not have the same rights. A toddler cannot go by her/ himself to school no matter how much he/ she might want to. One parent has to take him. The toddler cannot choose what religion to join, what to eat or where to live among many other things. A person younger than 18 cannot give consent for sex, and his/her parents decide where he/she studies, where he lives, and many other things. A person younger than 21 cannot decide to drink alcohol. It is easy to see that the younger a human is the fewer rights he has and the more parents decide for him. Why is that? Because we all recognize that before 18, a human is not ready to make some decisions and parents are trusted to take the best decisions for them. A pre-person like an embryo simply fits into this scale. It is not fit to make decisions even about their own life and the mother is the one who should decide to carry the pregnancy to the end it based on her and the pre-human best interests. (Bringing an unwanted child to the world to be rejected, to suffer and maybe be mistreated is worse than aborting, for both the fetus and the family in my opinion)

Tin-Man's picture


Dog-gonnit, that ten thousand "Agree" button has GOT to be around here somewhere! That was excellent!

calhais's picture
Is like saying an acorn is

[It] is like saying an acorn is the same as a tree.

No, it is not. Different things can be the same in some ways. The typical claim is not analogous to the claim that an acorn is exactly the same as a tree, but rather that a germinated acorn is about the same as the parent tree in genetic makeup and different in terms of development.

Notice, I am not really talking about abortion here. I just want it to be known which are the arguments typically made, and which are not.

toto974's picture


I will toy with semantic here: "Different things CAN be the same in SOME ways." How many ways do you count before equating two things.
Then, can you precize what is your analogy when you are saying "a germinated acorn" please?

calhais's picture
Equality is contextually

Equality is contextually absolute and overall graded. If in a certain sense two things are same, then in that sense, they are equal; if overall there are a set of relevant properties to determine for a pair of objects, then the degree of similitude of the objects can be taken as the ratio of shared properties within the set.

The acorn must be germinated because otherwise it is not yet alive; it has not started to grow.

LogicFTW's picture
I want to make a 2nd account

I want to make a 2nd account so I can like this post again. I know I know, against the rules, but it is the thought that counts right?

Sapporo's picture
Do pro-lifers count their age

Do pro-lifers count their age from conception? That would suck.

You are derived from an egg first created while your own mother was in the womb, but of course that would be a completely arbitrary date, unlike your birthday.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.