If You Can Say God Might Not Exist, Then Why Can’t I Say This?

Silly bishop. No one is saying you can’t say that. We’re just saying you need to defend your position–y’know, with something more than, “‘Cause my [unproven] god says so.”

No matter what you say, life never begins until an egg is fertilized. Never.

Have to point out that the bishop is in Calgary, Alberta not the US.

Antichrists know no boundaries. Especially after creating that One-World Government. Didn’t you hear?

From wikipedia:

A non sequitur is a conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). It is a comment which, due to its lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing. Its use can be deliberate or unintentional. Literally, it is Latin for “it does not follow.” In other literature, a non sequitur can denote an abrupt, illogical, unexpected or absurd turn of plot or dialogue not normally associated with or appropriate to that preceding it. It is a type of logical fallicy.

Biship Henry needs to know about this.

Nobody’s stopping him. The difference is that he’s seeking to suppress others’ rights to speak and nobody’s suppressing his.
Believers in magic, like religion, fear open debate because it fosters critical thought.

Takma:

I’d suggest it has to do with the fact that they don’t consider self-awareness as a factor in the morality of the decision. Five such arguments that an abortion opponent could make would be:

1. The morality of an action is determined by whether it is in accordance with the will of God. God stated “Thou shalt not murder” and thus it is morally indefensible to kill a fetus. God gave Adam dominion over the ‘lower’ beasts and so there can be no moral argument against slaughtering animals.

2. The morality of an action is determined by the extent to which it restricts the potential action of a rational agent. While a fetus is incapable of taking action, it will in most normal circumstances develop into a rational agent and have its ongoing projects severely restricted by its abortion. The ability to communicate using language is a necessary precursor to the development of rationality and so there can be no moral argument against slaughtering animals.

3. The morality of an action is determined by whether it effectively encourages individual flourishing. A woman’s individual flourishing is encouraged through having children. Thus, abortion restricts a woman’s individual flourishing and so should is not moral. Sustenance is necessary to one’s individual flourishing and within certain health parameters the nature of this sustenance is irrelevant. Thus, there can be no moral argument against slaughtering animals so long as one intends to eat the animal or prepare it for others to eat.

4. The morality of an action is determined by its conformity with community standards. Many communities oppose abortion and so it is immoral. Many communities permit animal slaughter and so it is moral.

5. The morality of an action is determined by the good it provides to the greatest number. The harm suffered by the vast majority of people in knowing that an abortion has occurred is stronger than any benefit a woman may find in having the abortion and so it is immoral. There aren’t very many vegetarians and so their views on animal slaughter are not relevant, so it is moral to slaughter animals since many people derive pleasure from eating them.

The problem one typically encounters in debates on issues such as these is that the participants fail to agree on the nature of morality yet argue as if they were in agreement. A more productive approach is to consider the other person’s morality and demonstrate that in fact the conclusion they are suggesting does not logically follow. On the abortion issue, for example, I see some pretty clear objections to arguments 2 through 5 (although argument 1 has an essentially unreasonable premise and so is of course immune from logical attack). (Another approach, of course, is arguing that their view of morality is incorrect. This approach is likely to be unfruitful.) Arguing that abortion is permissible on the grounds that a fetus is unable to feel pain or have self-awareness is a non-starter when you’re debating someone who doesn’t think that these concerns matter in determining the morality of the action.

But he can and does, so what’s his point?

“If you can say that God probably doesn’t exist, go ahead, relax and enjoy yourself, why can’t I say abortion kills a child? Give me an answer. So far I haven’t got one.”

>
Here’s a couple of answers for the bishop:

1) You can say anything you want to (short of screaming ‘fire’ in a crowded theater). That’s freedom of speech. But it’s not entirely about what you can say, it’s about whether what you say is reasonable and should be taken seriously.

2) Now, about that, if you are claiming that a zygote or a blastocyst is equivalent to a post-birth “child”, I don’t think you can make a rational case for it. It will come down to your belief that God gives a soul to this zygote at the moment of fertilization. If you want to be taken seriously, you would have to make a good rational case 1) that souls exist and 2) that they enter the body at the moment of fertilization.

Here’s a tip-off: expect identical twins and genetic chimeras to come up in the conversation. Also expect Yahweh’s treatment of the unborn in the Old Testament to come up.

“If you can say that God probably doesn’t exist, go ahead, relax and enjoy yourself, why can’t I say abortion kills a child? Give me an answer. So far I haven’t got one.”

You can, buddy! (Although your statement would be more factual if you said “abortion prevents a child from ever being born”), feel free to knock yourself out! That’s the beauty of free speech.

I think he mentioned the abortion thing because a “pro”-life group at the university was asked not to demonstrate because their placards depicting chopped up fetuses were upsetting for some people. He took umbridge at that and has been inundating the newspaper (he has his own column) with diatribes about how unfair the liberals are in stopping the “pro”-life people from sharing their views.

I must note that had they chosen to share their views without the gruesome pictures they would have been allowed to picket at the university.

The proposed wording might be deemed too offensive or controversial to run on the side of a bus. It would make an interesting court case to determine whether it would be allowable on free speech grounds.

However, in Ottawa I have seen bus shelter posters reading: “Abortion stops a beating heart”, as well as in-bus ads for Birthright (pro-life pregnancy counselling agency), so he can hardly complain that his side is banned from putting their view across, in some form, on the transit system.

So he’s a whiner. But we knew that.