THE STRAW GOD FALLACY
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
" I'm of the opinion that the only thing standing between me and any wrongful act, is simply lack of opportunity. "
Whoa, John! I missed this until now. The first word that came to mind when I read it was psychopathy. Seriously, maybe rethink the claim that the only reason you don’t rape, pillage, murder and bake babies for Sunday brunch is lack of opportunity?
I can't, because I do think most of our behavior is situational rather than dispositional. We can discuss the reasons why if you're interested.
"I think there is continuity between an embryo and a child, that they both refer to the same human entity, "
What evidence supports this view beyond your arbitrary and bare assertion? What characteristics do they share for example? Are they both sentient? Do they both feel pain? Are they both capable of experiencing emotional trauma? Are they both viable without the mothers body to sustain them?
An insentient balstocyst is not a child, and only a complete moron, or someone too dishonest for any rational debate would even try to make such a claim. If people want to oppose abortion,, and I can think of many reasons why they might, lying in so clumsy and stupid a fashion doesn't help their cause. It just shuts down all moral debate, which in my experience is typical of the arrogant sense of entitlement a lot of religious apologists attach to their subjective religious beliefs.
I should coin a new term, The Straw Sheldon.
The illogical position is the one that defines their terms post hoc. You literally just looked for any quality that an adult has, and then asked me why an embryo doesn't have them. You might as well have said an embryo isn't a human, because it doesn't have hair and pay taxes.
John 6IX Breezy,
Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?
The relentlessly dishonest & evasive wheezy has a certain ring to it. Without any pretence at evidencing it you claimed:
""I think there is continuity between an embryo and a child, that they both refer to the same human entity, "
I responded "What evidence supports this view beyond your arbitrary and bare assertion? What characteristics do they share for example? Are they both sentient? Do they both feel pain? Are they both capable of experiencing emotional trauma? Are they both viable without the mothers body to sustain them?"
So this just yet another dishonest lie from you, you're consistent I'll give you that, relentlessly so. Now are you ever going to dress the facts that illustrate the fundamental difference between a foetus or blastocyst and a child or baby? As if we didn't all know the answer to that one.
Wheezy " You literally just looked for any quality that an adult has, and then asked me why an embryo doesn't have them.2
I never asked why, I just asked you to stop lying and acknowledge the fact. However, looked? Are you seriously suggesting it requires much scrutiny to see that a blastocyst is insentient, can't feel pain, and can't experience emotion? Care to share your sagacity with us and explain why these differences are not salient to your lie in describing a foetus as a child or baby, when they are sentient, can experience pain, and can experience emotion/ Or why you think it's a "straw man" argument to point it out in a debate on the relative morality of terminating a pregnancy, compared to murdering a baby or child, which you are claiming is the same? Where is the continuity of identity there exactly? All you offered was DNA, and toe nail clippings have that, and potentiality, well so what? Since you made those claims and have been asked for some objective evidence or cogent argument to support the assertion you have ignored the requests as you always do, and simply rolled on making the claims again and again as if they have been accepted as true. Now all of a sudden it's straw man to even point out your lie.
Maybe a lying wheezy will catch on?
I just... can not resist.. putting my 2 cents in on abortion.
Okay, if I understand correctly, you think abortion is wrong because there is continuity between an embryo and a child that they are both human even if an embryo is only in the developmental state, and as an embryo is a human an embryo deserves all the same protections a human being after it is born has.
Here we unfortunately have to at the very least clearly define embryo, I am fine with whatever you pick, it just needs to be concise. While awaiting your reply, https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/embryo defines it as: (This is a human medical term dictionary instead of using the more broad embryo defintion, which I used for more conciseness to the related subject.)
a new organism in the earliest stage of development. In humans this is defined as the developing organism from the fourth day after fertilization to the end of the eighth week. After that the unborn baby is usually referred to as the fetus. adj., adj em´bryonal, embryon´ic."
So you are saying from 96 hours on, (after fertilization), this pin head sized roughly 16 cell organism unique in that it contains dna information from both a male and the host female and unique potential, but otherwise not very different than any other cluster of cells in a woman's body has all the same rights of ~37 trillion cell human with memory, nervous system, and also has total self sufficiency, (does not need a host.)
Okay I get it, what you really mean is it is not a human, I think we can all agree that is ridiculous assertion in almost every way. A collection of 16 cells is only something that has potential to be a human.
Does a potential to be human 16 cell organism have the same rights as a human? Does it actually have more rights than a full fledged human in that it has the right to override the woman's right to control over what is in her own body? What if this 16 cell cluster will result in the death of the host before this potential to be human is viable outside the host? Does this 16 cell embryo still has rights to life over the 37 trillion cell host?
What if there is a 16 cell embryo where it is found that there is a 10 percent chance it will kill the mother/, and 90% chance that the embryo itself will die? Still no abortion allowed? The mother cannot make this awful choice, weighing her own life and that of the potential of a human? Instead other people make that choice for her because they decided this 16 cell potential has more right to life then a full fledged 37 trillion cell host.. or not?
How about products of rape, incest and or both? Unfortunately there are poor little girls that get raped over and over and end up pregnant at frightening young ages. But nope, this 16 cell potential of a human has more rights then this poor little girl?
Here is where anti choice people get in real trouble. Most will say: "of course, abortion is allowed in certain extreme cases." But in saying that, they just decided a completely innocent 16 cell organism suddenly loses these amazing rights that supercede the mother's simply based on the circumstances of its conception, something this 16 cell embryo had absolutely no control over and is blamess for. Why does this supposed human potential suddenly lose its rights that supersedes the mother rights? It did nothing wrong. It supposed to be a human with all the rights a human is supposed to get, (and then some!)
Now these amazing rights that supersedes the mother must follow rules some group of people got together and decided. Well if A, B, or C happens this "human" that has rights that exceed the mother loses those rights even though this 16 cell embryo is completely and utterly innocent.
Starting to sound an awful lot like a group of people got together and decided the rights of innocent embryos and mothers based purely on what they would like and works for them. And through out history this was almost universally men that never would have to face the issue of giving up the rights to their own body themselves.
It only gets worse from here, but this post has already gotten way to long, if anyone is still reading I will be happy to continue to utterly demolish the utter insanity of people that are anti choice. If anyone request's it.
Quick note: my personal opinion is: The woman's right to choice supersedes the potential to be human, (fetus in this case,) rights she is host to, up to the point the fetus is viable, to at least an average of 50 percent survival rate outside the womb. In modern rich societies with NICU units that can afford them for every child in the country that might need it, that is around roughly 25 weeks for rich first world countries. Perhaps 26 weeks if we are being honest about the average access to high end NICU units even in rich countries. For the world's poor, that do not have access to modern medicine, 2 billion people living on less than 2.50 a day, In this scenario is closer to 34 weeks. Anti abortionist are more then welcome to turn their efforts to providing modern medicine and well run NICU to these poor, driving down this 34 week number to 25. Something I would wholeheartedly endorse.
So, I'm going to use embryo to mean anything that isn't born yet, since my arguments apply to zygotes and fetuses alike. We can distinguish those three if you think there are important differences. I think the most important definition, which I don't have a straightforward answer to, is what defines a human.
1. I think the idea of "potential" is more fitting of sperm, which do have potential for human life if it ever comes in contact with an ovum. I think you can say an embryo has the potential to become a fetus, or a child, or an adult. But it doesn't make sense to say a fetus has the potential to become human, since I think an embryo is as much human as a baby.
2. I think we wrongly attribute value to size sometimes. A big person isn't worth more than small person, and a baby isn't worth a little less than a child. The difference between all of these is the number of cells in their body. So if an adult having many times more cells than a baby, doesn't devalue the babies worth, then an embryo doesn't lose value by just having 16 cells.
3. Now, the above two points deal with the identity of the embryo. Now when we get to the topic of rights, things are bound to get difficult and confusing. In general I think women can do whatever they want with their bodies, so long as it doesn't hurt the child that's inside. That means no drinking alcohol, no smoking, no having their boyfriend hit them in the stomach with a bat, and definitely no unnecessary abortions.
If complications arise, and the baby threatens the mother's life, then go for it, have the abortion. Neither life is worth more than the other. If the mother wants to give birth, even if it kills her, but it saves the baby, then go for it too. There's no right/wrong choice here. As far as the 10% 90% scenario, I see abortion as a medical procedure, not a cosmetic procedure. In medicine, if you have to amputate legs, take out kidneys, separate conjoined twins even if one dies, do whatever is medically expedient. But no abortions unless its medically necessary. As far as rape goes, I think the circumstances are difficult and impossible to make a guilt-free decision with. But I do think its clear that the abortion won't fix or erase the rape. So have the abortion if you wish. I just see it as an emotional decision, not a logical one.
Then it’s a good thing you’ll never be in a position to face this decision. Yay for you.
What if I become a legislator lol.
You’ll still not have to face the decision yourself. Grow a uterus, get pregnant when you don’t want to be, and we’ll talk.
Back in early december the first US baby was successfully born with a clean bill of health from a woman that did not have an uterus and had it transplanted. (this has already happened numerous times in other parts of the world.) With many more of this type of success story to occur in the future.
Doctors and researchers as well as other experts in the field comment that the technology is very close, if not already available that a male could have uterus transplanted to them and with hormone therapy plus in vitro fertilization, plus a bunch of other stuff only someone with a specialized medical degree could understand, that a male could potentially carry a baby to term. (Obviously the birth would have to be via cesarean section.)
The technology is also not far away where they can create artificial wombs that can carry a baby to term for people. It will start with greatly increasing the odds of healthy result of prematurely born babies, and as the tech rapidly advances: to the point where a rich couple can decide to forgo the danger and discomfort of a mother carrying a baby at all.
All the rules, ethics around abortion and women's rights will need to be redrawn.
Are all those against abortion prepared to pay out big (BIG!!) bucks to have all unwanted children raised in artificial wombs because they bizarrely consider a zygote to be a full on human, and to not do so would be murder? It would probably quickly bankrupt even the incredibly rich roman catholic church. (Within a few years is my guess.) Why don't all these people so against abortion not immediately set to work donating billions to speed up the innovation of this technology. Think of all the millions of "human lives" that would be saved!
It is likely only the rich will have access to this technology. So the vast majority of poor women/couples in the world will not have this option available to them. So then it would become, if you are poor, guess what you get to be an unwilling host and not have control over your body, where the rich get to have full control. Income inequality is already a HUGE factor in the abortion debate and would only grow exponentially worse in this very likely future scenario.
Remember, it would be highly, (criminally?) wrong to demand a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term when there is an alternative where the woman would not have to be a forced host, and the baby can still grow to full health. People against abortion scream until their hoarse that it is murder of a human being. Well denying a "human being" a shot at not getting "murdered" because they don't want to pony up large amounts of cash to stand behind their convictions are speaking nothing but hot air.
Also: when anyone can have a baby regardless of their gender or ability to do so, that is their own, and the female does not have to carry it around. What happens to the adoption numbers? Sure some people now fully capable of having their own children will still adopt, but it would be beyond foolish to not expect a large drop in adoption rates from all the people that can now have their own babies. And adoption rates for children that are not young babies to go to good homes are already abysmal unless a capable surviving family member is willing to take up the enormous task of raising a child.
We have an oversupply of Eristics in power, gawd forfend we have another.
This is a straw woman fallacy.
Cyber, I get you. None of us men will ever know how women feel. Even if we try. Even if we get a gender reassignment surgery, we will never know what it’s like to be a woman.
This issue, however, is not a woman’s issue even if that’s how it’s presented. It’s a human rights issue. Of both mother and child.
@John Re: "What if I become a legislator lol."
Please pardon the interruption, but there was something about the last exchange with you and Cyber that.... well.... "unsettled" me a bit. And, honestly, I was about to just let it go and continue on my merry way, but for some reason it just kept nagging at me. And, for the life of me, I am truly not exactly certain what it is about it that is bugging me so much. It is like something just barely within my peripheral vision that disappears in an annoying manner every time I turn to look directly at it. Further, I freely admit that it could be nothing more than simple misunderstanding. Regardless, there was something about it that triggered my "Spidey Senses", so to speak. Maybe somebody can help me put my concerns to rest? So, here is what bothered me...
John, at the end of one post you said, "But I do think its clear that the abortion won't fix or erase the rape. So have the abortion if you wish. I just see it as an emotional decision, not a logical one." (Okay, you are entitled to a personal opinion. No biggie so far. Maybe just mildly condescending, but nothing to set off any major alarms.)
And then Cyber responded with, "Then it’s a good thing you’ll never be in a position to face this decision." (She has a damn good point. Plus, it has the benefit of being very true.)
But then you replied, "What if I become a legislator lol." (And THAT is where the "disturbing" feeling hit me.)
Now, considering the fact that you are a man (according to your profile), it seems incredibly unlikely (obviously) that you could even remotely relate in any way whatsoever as to how it feels to be a woman (or, more specifically, a pregnant woman). And in that same respect, there is absolutely no way you could ever relate to what it might feel like to be a woman in a position to have to make such an incredibly "weighty" decision concerning her own body and the potential life she may be carrying in her body. (Again, I am stating the obvious here.) With that in mind, your "legislator" reply struck me as being incredibly...... well..... quite frankly, insulting and rude. And it even had a slight "ominous tone" to it. Yes, you put the "lol" at the end as a sign of "joking", but for some reason that almost makes it worse. But I believe it is the underlying insult that bothers me more. Because to imply that being a legislator sitting in an office reading a report and in charge of passing some type of law (based on something which you cannot possibly relate to) is even remotely comparable to being a woman in a real situation of being pregnant and having to make a real decision about what to do with HER OWN BODY is..... Uh.... well... Pretty damn arrogant and condescending, to say the least.
Anyway, like I said, it may be nothing. But stuff like that bothers me. Could just be a simple misunderstanding. But then..... I also have to consider one other factor, John. It is my understanding you just graduated with a degree in Psychology, right? (Or something along those lines.) And that is quite an accomplishment. As for myself, I have no formal degree in Psychology. What I DO have, however, is over twenty years of practical, hands-on, up-close-and-personal in-your-face experience in dealing with an extremely wide variety of individuals with psychological problems ranging from the mild and meek recluse all the way to full-blown violent psychopaths and sociopaths. And I had to deal with all of these people outside of a nice comfortable and safe office or exam room, meaning I had to learn to "read" people at a moments notice in any given environment and situation. Otherwise, it could mean either myself or somebody else getting seriously injured or killed. And here I sit typing this today, if that is any indication of my abilities. As something of a side-benefit of my experiences, I gradually developed rather "specialized" writing and communication skills. Part of those skills (for the purpose of this particular situation) involves writing in a very deliberate manner, to relay a very deliberate tone, to invoke a very deliberate response/feeling from the reader. And it can be done in very subtle ways such that the reader may not even be aware of it. And in being able to DO that, it means I am also pretty good at DETECTING it when somebody else does it. See what I mean? After all, YOU have a degree in "reading people", right? Meaning you are very studied in the ways of how the mind works and in how to "manipulate" the thinking of others. Which, in my mind, leads me to believe there are VERY FEW things you post on here that are "accidental" mis-wordings. You are a very intelligent guy, and based on your posts, I can tell you are incredibly deliberate in your wording when you write. And I suppose that is what bothered me so much about your response to Cyber. Then again - hey - maybe it was nothing.
Nice post my friend.
In short, another slip which shows our beloved "breezy" in his true misogynistic colours...that was the point I was making as well when I quoted Timothy in my reply.
This is a case of "great minds think alike...and of course us old fools seldom differ. I think we suffer from experience overload. It has the effect of bringing other peoples speech and actions into very sharp focus.
Breezy has let slip many times what brand of theist he is, although not specific about the exact sub cult, and, given those clues I suspect that the "salvation through childbirth" and the verse I quoted would be one of the underpinnings of his attitude toward women in general and abortion in particular.
*Spelling and punctuation edited.
@Old Man Re: Breezy
The thing is, he is a smart dude. No doubt. But he is really just "book smart". He has read and studied all these things about human psychology and he has graduated after many years of being stuck in a safe and cozy classroom with all of that new knowledge just bursting at the seams to be used. So he gets on here thinking he will use his newly acquired academic "skills" to talk above everybody's head as if we are too dull-headed to comprehend the "words of wisdom" with which he graces us. And while I can appreciate self-confidence and a bit of cockiness to a certain degree, there is a fine line between that and being downright arrogant and condescending. And, obviously, that simply gets downright ANNOYING after awhile. Just an observation from an old brainless hunk of junk who has seen more things than he sometimes cares to remember.
I actually have a degree in psyche ( as a muso/ performer a time comes when you realise that a few letters after your name can avoid a penurious future) and I took full advantage of the lovely American system of "User pays" and a simple test to get entrance. SDSU and National University in Ca. were my Alma Maters. Loved the study and learned a lot. As a mature student of 35 years I met many callow greenies like dear Breezy, not many Baptists as Psyche and its emphasis on statistics in the first years put them off. Fantasy is preferred to actualities after all. So anyway, I specialised in behavioural psyche (new at the time) and can see where breezy comes from mixed with his baptist heritage. As I said in another post, someone, sometime will rein him in hard if tries his 'clever clever' shit in public practice.
He will probably end up advertising in the "Christian Monitor " or Alabama Republican Gazette" as a "Christian Counsellor" or visiting prisons sucking on the welfare teat while voting GOP. .
I would love to send any of the forum posts of his to any practice mentor, he would be toast.
If you ever make it to Australia I would love to buy you a beer....or a decent red ( I live in wine country)
*Edited for clarity
@Old Man Re: "If you ever make it to Australia I would love to buy you a beer....or a decent red ( I live in wine country)"
I have always wanted to visit Australia. That place has always been a fascination for me. (Quite honestly, had I not met my wife when I did, I would likely be out there now, as I had planned on travelling out that way after I retired. LOL) If I am ever fortunate enough to make it out that way in the future, though, I will definitely give you a shout. It would be an honor to have a few pints with you. On that same note, if you ever happen to find yourself within the southeastern section of the good ol' U.S. of A., then I would be delighted to buy you a couple of brews and shoot the shit.
You're not perchance in the Hunter Valley, Old Man?
No, Western Australia, Perth Metro but close the Swan River and our own wine country!
Damn! I'm a Hunter Valley, NSW girl. Too far away, Old Man, too far away :-(
Tin man, I think its important not to confuse indifference with arrogance.
I'm here for one thing only: discussion. My education is useless on these forums. Unfortunately, I think people find comfort in pretending I'm uneducated. The only reason anyone knows I study psychology, is because I'm constantly put in a position where I either state my resume, or nobody wants to have a discussion. Luckily, I've realized that those that do that, do so because they have no other argument.
People try to censor discussion more than I have patience for. In order to think, one must risk being offensive; I'm certainly not here as an exercise in tact. All I need is one or two individuals who enjoy discussions and conversations and I'm good. The rest of the forum's members are just there for decoration. But notice this is a statement of indifference, not arrogance.
P.S. I am guilty of enjoying the subtle art of the comeback: defend yourself minimally and sarcastically.
"P.S. I am guilty of enjoying the subtle art of the comeback: defend yourself minimally and sarcastically.:
You have neither the wit,education or humility to recognise subtlety and greater experience.
Being an arrogant tyro as you appear is not an attractive thing in the real world.
This isn't the real world, unfortunately.
Take a break. Its really not good for you to be so angry and invested into something so trivial. Look up these books: The Cyber Effect and The Village Effect. They talk about how human behavior changes online.
How is this not the real world?
You're projecting. Look that up. If you get stuck on any big words shout them out and someone will help.
See arrogant sarcasm is nothing special.
"I'm here for one thing only: discussion."
Bullshit, i stopped reading after that lie, you're to show how clever you (think) you are, and thus validate your superstitious beliefs, and by extensions put those uppity atheists in their place. How's that going by the way...that was rhetorical btw.
No, Breezy is advocating a board of male co-religionists, the parents, the rapist (if available) the boyfriend.maybe a cardinal or two to make all these 'informed' decisions. After all women cant be responsible for their own bodies now can they?
For evidence of my unassailable assertions I present
" 1 Timothy 2:11-15 New International Version (NIV)
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety
I promised my self I would not respond to Breezy's insufferably smug posts but crikey moses, his last answer here was just a full crock of self satisfied male-centric gobsmacking crapola..