an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Alan ‘Rhology’ Maricle: Sick Minded Lunatic

 Pictured: Alan Maricle aka Rhology, click to watch

In the comments here an anonymous poster has drawn my attention to an anti-abortion article by Alan ‘don’t call me Alan Maricle please, call me Rhology’ Maricle on his frankly disgusting ‘Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma’ blog. Responding to a comment from a woman who became pregnant from a rape, Alan Maricle immediately jumps into the saddle of his high horse and rides hard into the fight. First, here’s the original comment left on Alan Maricle‘s blog –

“I am one of those women. I was raped. I conceived a child through that hateful act. I am not the person I used to be. She died a long time ago. You all speak. About this topic with such passion, as if you really know what you are talking about. You don’t. Know the first thing about the pain that comes with knowing the baby growing in you belongs to a monster. You have no idea the guilt that you live with for wishing you hadn’t been raped because that would mean your child wouldn’t exist. Or the emotionally hell that comes with looking back and wondering if it would’ve been better for your child if they had been aborted. I didn’t expect to have a child while in college. I am now struggling, mentally, financially, and even physically at times to make sure my daughter doesn’t know one second of pain and it is killing me. I am fighting tooth and nail to ensure that monster never gets custody of her. Because until he is convicted he still has rights. No matter what choice a woman makes she is going to be unimaginablly changed forever. You have no right to tell a woman that she HAS to watch her belly grow and cry every night knowing how she got in that position. It is her choice which decision is right for her. I would like to say as a woman forced to have sex against her will and to become pregnant against her will, no man should ever have the right to tell me what to do with my own body. Its not fair to subject me to what you want me to do after going through all of that. Obviously I did not choose abortion. But the choice was mine. So unless you are going to help us raise these children or promise they won’t go to some horrible abusive foster home while waiting to be adopted.. please leave us to have what little control of our own bodies we have left.”

It’s pretty harrowing stuff, I’m sure you’ll agree, and it would surely take a true mad man to dare to criticise this woman. Having never met an opportunity to be self-righteous and ‘holier than thou’ that he didn’t like, Alan Maricle IS that mad man. Let’s look at his post point by point….

A woman and rape victim left a heartbreaking comment in one of our older posts. I would like to post a reply here:

My heart breaks to hear about the horror you have undergone, and yet I am thankful to hear that your child lives, that you chose life when you were not legally required to, and that you are not writing from a position of regret about a choice to abort that can never be undone.

Already Alan Maricle is siding with the child of the rape rather than the raped. Not sure that I agree that the account is not written from a ‘position of regret’ though….

I know that these may just seem to be words on a page, but I hate what has happened to you. 

But not enough to not want to make abortion illegal eh, Alan Maricle? You want to remove the right for women to choose what they do with their own bodies, you want to force women made pregnant by rape to either have the baby, or seek a back street abortion that might kill them! Let’s see what he says next….

At the same time, I stand in horror of the darkness that lives inside of me. I have been rescued from that darkness by someone who hates it far more than even you hate it. That someone is Jesus. He hates sin so much that He was willing to leave the glory of Heaven, walk streets crusted with dust, thorns, and camel manure in order to share a message that most people would reject, show great love to people who hated Him, and then be put to death in a horrible way on the cross by those very same people He came to save. He did all this so that we all could have forgiveness for the dark things we have done, and so we could have eternal life with Him in Heaven.

 
Oh! Why didn’t you say that before, Alan Maricle!? That’s alright then! Yes, this poor young woman may have suffered at the hands of a rapist, and might be still suffering now, but it’s NOTHING compared to the suffering that your god incarnate as a man suffered! Yeah, cos he REALLY suffered, what with all the ‘sacrificing’ himself to himself to satisfy the need for a blood sacrifice he himself felt he needed! That’s PROPER suffering! Are you listening rape victims of the world? Alan Maricle has put you all to SHAME!! You don’t know the meaning of suffering until you’ve been the all powerful creator of the universe ‘sacrificing’ himself to himself!

Sadly I feel that I need to point out that I’m being sarcastic, not because I think my regular readers wont immediately see that, but because I can fully imagine Alan Maricle trying to use the above to make out that I’m anti women. On we go….

Yet because of His great generosity and love, He offers us as this forgiveness and eternal life as a free gift.

Yeah, he’s now telling the rape victim that she should be grateful for the ‘sacrifice’ his god made for her. Strap yourself in though, as things are about to go dramatically off piste –

I urge you to examine your life in light of God’s law. Have you ever lied to someone? If you have, are you not a liar? Have you ever been greedy or selfish, wanted something that doesn’t belong to you? Then you are a thief at heart, malcontent with the many blessings God has given you. 

Holy fuck. Words almost fail me. Fucking hell. Er….where to start with that? What were you thinking, Alan Maricle?? Did you stop and consider what you’d written before you hit ‘Publish Post’? I think the above might be amongst the most disgusting things I’ve ever read from a Christian.

We have all broken God’s law. I have broken God’s law. We are all guilty. You are guilty. I would like to ask you to consider that you can not live a good enough life to please God. Fall on Jesus, beg Him to forgive you and give you eternal life, turn from your lawbreaking. He will give you a new heart with new desires. Then read the Bible and obey what you read.

Oh. Incredible. THAT’S the most disgusting thing I’ve ever read from a Christian. Alan Maricle, you are either insane or actually evil.

The day is coming when Jesus will redeem everything and will wipe away every tear from the eye of every one of His people. I pray you will be among His people, because then you will experience full healing and redemption of the horror you have undergone. You will even be given vision to see how even the worst of experiences was woven seamlessly into His plan, and you will rejoice. Imagine rejoicing!

I have a feeling that the only option she has is to ‘imagine rejoicing’, Alan Maricle, certainly people like you aren’t going to allow her to actually experience it. Alan, really, fucksake man, you’re demented.

If you are not among His people, you will experience total loss. It doesn’t matter whether you are rapist or victim, in that case. Nothing will be redeemed for you. No comfort will you know. No joy, no peace, no love.

I don’t think I’ve ever encountered such a puffed up, vilely self-righteous prick as Alan Maricle

Please, consider the two options. Choose life.

She already did, Alan Maricle, and she’s suffering as a result.

As for the issue of abortion after rape, we have discussed that at length already, and I would like to ask you to read what has been written with consideration and open-mindedness.

Why should ANYONE want to listen to your opinion after your post so far, Alan Maricle? I’m sorry to say that things get a whole lot worse from here on in, as Alan Maricle ‘answers’ some specific points…

Let me reply to a few specifics in your comment (which I thank you for posting):

You all speak. About this topic with such passion, as if you really know what you are talking about.

I’d like to ask you not to generalise. You think no abolitionist has ever been raped? Think again.

Yeah! How DARE she generalise!! What a fucking bitch eh, Alan Maricle? Man, you ought to just go out and stone her to death for that! (/end sarcasm). I can feel my blood pressure going up as I read this sickening garbage from Alan….

There are also among us those who are survivors of abortion.
There are among us those who adopt previously-unwanted children.
Many of us have given money and dozens of man-hours toward helping pregnant women in difficult circumstances.

Bully for you Alan Maricle! Aren’t you a fucking saint!

Also, whether any of us have ever experienced difficulty in this life or whether we have all had silver spoons in our mouths our whole lives, this is irrelevant to whether we are correct in our arguments and position, that human abortion must be abolished.
Please reconsider.

No, it’s entirely relevant. The fact that you, Alan Maricle, will NEVER experience pregnancy from a rape is wholly fucking relevant. Until you have a womb you don’t have the right to demand the removal of the rights of those who do.

the emotionally hell that comes with looking back and wondering if it would’ve been better for your child if they had been aborted.

Could I ask you to consider this?
The way it went, your child has life, opportunity, breath. Yes, there is struggle. Yes, there is difficulty. Yes, there is pain in this life, but that is life.

Yes, Alan Maricle, there is pain in the ONLY life we have, and scumbags like you are adding to that pain with your self righteous  dickishness.

You don’t get to make the decision “yes, this person should live” or “no, this person should not live”. That’s not your prerogative. Of course it is better to live!

Yes she does and yes it is, because we live in a civilised society, and not the Dark Ages Theocracy that you and your pals would love to see spread across the globe.

I am now struggling…financially

We are willing and perhaps able to help you.
Please contact me. Click on my profile page and email me.

How are you going to do this Alan Maricle? Are you going to take money away from your own family to help this girl? I can’t see this being something your wife will get behind! I smell a meaningless piece of grandstanding, prove me wrong (*see edit at end).

Also, Jesus taught us that sometimes we undergo financial hardship and difficulty so that we may learn to depend fully on Him, and not on ourselves, our earning power, or our savings accounts. Life comes from Him, in all aspects.

Ah, Jesus said sometimes people will be poor! That’s alright then! Good one, Alan Maricle, you don’t even need to give her any money now, as Jesus said that people sometimes ‘undergo financial hardship’! As for ‘Life comes from him’…..well, you need to prove that this god of yours exists to start with, something EVERY SINGLE THEIST EVER has failed to do.

You have no right to tell a woman that she HAS to watch her belly grow and cry every night knowing how she got in that position

It may surprise you to learn that I agree. I do not have the right to tell anyone what to do.
I am, however, commanded and responsible to tell you that Jesus does have the right to tell you what to do. He created you. He is your Master. He is far more intelligent and far wiser than any of us. We must listen to Him and obey Him, for He knows what is best.

“It’s not my fault that I have to tell you what to do! I’m only following the orders of Jebus! I’d LOVE to be able to tell you it’s ok to do what’s right for you, but the Big Man upstairs won’t let me!”  – what a sickening display of passing the buck, Alan Maricle.

It is her choice which decision is right for her

Let’s think about this on your terms. I’m sure you would also argue that it is my choice to do with my body more or less what I want, unless and until I decide to do something that injures someone else, right?
That is precisely what you are proposing here. Just saying for the sake of argument that the woman does have the right to do with her own body what she wants, if she chooses abortion, she is infringing on the most fundamental right of her child – the right to life. The mother’s rights stop at the baby’s body. The baby’s life must be respected, because just as I would not act to stop or infringe upon, for example, the rights of a group of Muslims or Satanists to assemble peaceably (for their right to assemble is my right to assemble), so is the baby’s right to life identical to your right to life.

Alan Alan Alan, you know full well that a foetus is not a ‘baby’ until several weeks into the pregnancy, but it suits your agenda to mutilate the truth.

Jesus has commanded us not to murder, and to take care of the weakest and most neglected members of society. How great a sin we commit if we ignore the very weakest! Shall we walk around and kick beggars in the face too?

What the flaming FUCK, Alan?? You’re an actual cunt.

Abortion is a violent act of murder in which the abortive woman generally participates at some level. The solution to victimhood is healing and redemption in Jesus, not becoming complicit in violence herself.

Again with the lies, I’m pretty sure that your Bible has several things to say about lying.

The rapist is the guilty party in rape. The baby is innocent. Please consider – we must not apply the death penalty to the innocent child of a criminal!

Yes, and the WOMAN IS INNOCENT as well! Why do you want to punish the victim of a criminal for the rest of her life, Alan Maricle?

unless you are going to help us raise these children

We are. We are abolitionists.
We are not anti-women or anti-women’s rights. We are pro-life, pro-women, pro-family, pro-adoption, anti-death, anti-destitution, anti-dissolution, anti-abortion. We desire to abolish the legal practice of human abortion, not punish the women already abused by its legality. We desire to confront and destroy the entire system of female subjugation and objectification which slyly encourages and often attends abortion’s unbridled occurrence (Eph 4:14).

You sound like the fucking Borg. You are profoundly anti-women’s rights! You desire to strip them of those rights, to force your religious beliefs on others!

You are obviously hurting, and my heart goes out to you, as do the hearts of my fellow abolitionists. I am posting this publicly, but I invite you to talk to us privately. Let us seek the Lord Jesus together and let us wait patiently for His healing, both in the now and in eternity. 

Alan, you are the worst human being alive.

*EDIT: Seems I called that one correctly, as this comment and this comment show –

“Are you implying that because I think that women should not murder their children, I thus have the obligation to drop my entire life and other responsibilities, such as to my own family, so as to provide “free babysitting services at 3 o’clock in the morning”? Do you have some argument as to why I am obligated to do this? Could you please give an argument, along with a moral framework by which we can know that moral obligations and duties exist?” 

and

(quoting a previous poster) when did i say drop everything? and you can survive 3 o’ clock in the morning babysitting

If I can, so can the mother.”

Vile.

Single Post Navigation

43 thoughts on “Alan ‘Rhology’ Maricle: Sick Minded Lunatic

  1. I knew that would get you going, but now I'm worried you might bust a blood vessel…

  2. Thank you, luckily I am a rather placid individual most of the time, and (despite disgusting me to my core) Alan Maricle hasn't driven me to hemorrhage.

  3. "Thank you, luckily I am a rather placid individual most of the time"As is evidenced by your calm demeanour in our exchanges here: Round 1 Round 2 Round 3.:-D

  4. Sye, by the third exchange I was almost Zen in my calmness, astonishing considering the tsunami of bullshit you were churning up.

  5. Wow. This is a pretty hate-filled vitriolic ramblepost full of nonsense. Maybe you should ask the woman who Rhology was talking to whether she agrees with you, and your assessment of Rhology's comments or not? -ASO, (not AM, but Ian John Philoponus)

  6. As I understand it, the woman that Alan was talking to was simply asking that she be given a choice. Alan would deny her any choice at all. I doubt if this would lead her to think well of Alan. Certainly, it doesn't lead me to think well of Alan. I wonder what Alan or ASO would do with a woman who took the morning after pill on the day she was raped. Would he or they launch a criminal investigation? Indict and convict the woman? Imprison this victim of rape for her desire to regain some tiny measure of control over her life? What, specifically, would Alan or the ASO do?

  7. Ian John Philoponus – if you agree with a single word that the insane Alan Maricle typed, then you are a scoundrel and a cunt of the highest measure.Bernd – I reckon the ASO would pursue her via the law, all the while claiming it was for her own good, and out of love. Because they're disgusting bastards.

  8. Alex, you seem very quick to judge motives. However, if Christianity is true (which I as an abolitionist believe it is) then what was suggested in the blog post is not from a person who is hateful and disgusting, but someone who love a person enough to tell them the truth in love, even when it hurts. I also would bet you and your atheist buddies would be quick to tell us to quit judging, yet here you are pronouncing judgment against someone (a group of people really, because we all agree with the author) and their motives. Perhaps you should take your own advice and quit making wrong judgments about us. By they way, as an atheist, what is your foundation for making any moral judgments whatsoever? Why should we be concerned with your opinion?

  9. "Perhaps you should take your own advice and quit making wrong judgments about us."And perhaps YOU should crawl back under the rock you came from, you horrendous excuse for a human being.Seriously, you and your 'abolitionist' pals are why I hope your sick religion is nothing but a distant memory in a couple of hundred years time.

  10. Alan, you are the worst human being alive.That's a bit over the top wouldn't you say? I'm an atheist who supports abortion rights, and I can think of plenty of people who are worse than Alan aka Rhology.A couple of weeks ago I was at a fundraiser put together by one of my friends from high school. His niece had a baby with her boyfriend and several months ago the SOB in a fit of rage threw the infant across the room into a crib, causing the infant to suffer a skull fracture and several broken ribs. The child requires a lot of medical care and it remains to be seen what permanent effects there will be. So when it comes to comparing vile behavior, I would have to say that a person who throws an infant across the room and severely injures the child is far worse than a person who believes that a woman impregnated by a rapist should carry the pregnancy to term.I take it though you meant the comment in the same spirit as Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World segments. Of course Rho's not the WORST human being alive. Rather, he's the human face of a point of view you believe is not merely wrong, but an affront to your personal values and your vision of a just society.Having interacted with him over the years, I know he has a talent for pushing buttons and eliciting profane invective from his detractors. Having gone down that road myself, I realized how stupid that was. Plus, I get the impression that folks like him consider it almost a badge of honor. So, take it from me, don't give him the satisfaction. Take a deep breath and slowly exhale before responding. You'll feel a lot better.BTW, thanks for the picture of him. I can see that his hairline is receding a lot faster than mine, and at 42, I can still see fine without eyeglasses.

  11. Tommy, you're absolutely right, he's not the 'worst' person in the world, but at the moment I was writing he was definitely up there.

  12. Yeah, there are definitely worse people out there. Here's another example from that same person.And for something really bad….That same guy on a different topic: a suicide that the victim's father blames on Dawkins!You'll notice that I haven't linked to his site directly: I want the extra hits to go to those who are criticizing and exposing him first. They all have direct links to his site.

  13. WonluvBy they way, as an atheist, what is your foundation for making any moral judgments whatsoever? Why should we be concerned with your opinion?Our "foundation"? Perhaps consideration for other people; that if everyone acted reasonable to each other it would mean that people would also treat you well? Emapthy towards others? Wanting to have a secure society to pass on to our kids, etc?To that end, people generally try to work out rules of behavior that will have the best chance of letting people get along with a minimum of grief. Circumstances are of course taken into account here.What is it with this kind of crap? Damned near every xian apologist/debater/commentator uses some variation of Wonluv's statement; usually when someone has just brought up an example of a disgusting or immoral behavior from a fellow xian.Do any of these people ever stop and realize that what they're truly saying is that without biblegod looking over their shoulders, it's themselves who have no reason/foundation to act morally? Statements like that just imply that it's the theist who have no consideration for the welfare of society, of other people, empathy, or concern for future generations. Otherwise, why would they constantly act so "confused" like this Wonluv guy did when atheists call someone out on a moral issue?Are they totally unable to think for themselves about what would constitute morality? Does the concept of "consequences" and all that other stuff I mentioned before need to be explained to them?

  14. Reynold, I get the impression that Vox Day doesn't get laid very much, hence all the uber macho posing.Statements like that just imply that it's the theist who have (sic) no consideration for the welfare of society, of other people, empathy, or concern for future generations.That kind of thinking goes back at least as far as Augustine. In City Of God, he writes:When a man lives 'according to man' and not 'according to God' he is like the Devil.When man lives according to himself, that is to say, according to human ways and not according to God's will, then surely he lives according to falsehood.So yeah, you can shout "empathy towards others" and "lets all be nice" to them as much as you want, but to them, it's just putting "human ways" before "God's will."So for the true believers like Wonluv and Rholalanogy, it's very simple. Humans were created by God to worship and serve God. God gives us clear instructions in the Bible how we are to conduct our lives. God is supposed to be at the center of everything we do. Doing things for "the good of society" or "empathy for others" is the wrong focus because it leads us into error. To provide an analogy, it's like you and I speak a completely different programming language than they do. When we try to communicate with them, it just doesn't compute, and vice versa. What they have done is to buy into a prepackaged belief system with pretensions of being objective but which is really just another subjective belief system wrapped up in the guise of divine command. Just imagine what that does to the mind of the fire breathing true believer who feels empowered by this. There's is not just another belief, it's God's will, and who are we to dare question it. To paraphrase Rick James from that Dave Chappelle skit, "Religion is a hell of a drug."

  15. Ugh! Correction. "Theirs is not just another belief…"Remember, Preview is my friend.

  16. Actually, Tommy, Vox is married with at least one kid. His wife "Spacebunny" bans people who argue with Vox too much on his blog!

  17. Ah, here's a thread which deals with him.

  18.      No, Alex, it wouldn't take a madman to criticise the woman. Abortion and rape are very similar. They are both about exercising power over someone who is helpless. And her ordeal is not a trump card that immunizes her against criticism so that she may harm whomever she pleases.     You state that the woman is also innocent. Based on the evidence at hand, I will agree. But no one (that I know of) is advocating executing her for being the victim of a rape or even for becoming pregnant as a result. And yet, you advocate execution for the child (or at least that such an execution be a "choice," like choosing chocolate ice cream, for the mother.)

  19. Pvbs, whatever I think personally about abortion is irrelevant, I will NEVER have to face the choice to seek it due to being a man, but I will always defend the right of someone else to choose to do what they feel is best for them. BTW, an abortion of a blastocyst (which doesn't even start to form until 5 days after conception) is NOT the same as 'executing' a child.

  20. Alex:     I do not defend the "right" of rapists to rape when they feel that is what is best for them. (I don't think you do either.) I submit that you do not always defend the right of someone else to choose to do what he feels is best for himself. I recall the saying "your right to swing your fist ends where another's nose begins."     I will only seek to interfere with people's choices for the purpose of protecting entities from the adverse effects of those choices.     By the way: Unless your advocacy for abortion rights ends when the blastocyst stage is complete, your assertion that it is not the same as executing a child has no relevance.

  21. Pvbs, as I've said, my entire opinion has no relevance, as I'm a male.However, that doesn't stop me from being able to recognise the obscenity of Alan Maricle's post.

  22. Alex:     I am not defending Rhology's post. Unfortunately, you went so far as to say that anyone who would dare criticize her must be a madman.     The beliefs that men hold on abortion are no more irrelevant than the beliefs that women hold on rape. My opposition to abortion is not "for the mother's own good." It is to protect the child. And one does not have to be in a position to abuse to have the right to weigh in against that abuse. Do you also think that only corporate executives should be allowed to voice concern to corporate executives throwing millions of people out on the street just so that they can give themselves fat bonuses? Or perhaps you would tell this woman that she has no business calling her rapist a monster because she is not a man and so would never be in a position to rape? No, a thousand times no. One does not need to be in a position to act as a perptrator before one has the right to speak on behalf of the victims. So, no, I don't believe that even you thin that the views of men seeking to protect the children are irrelevant. You only support abortion and would like to see advocates for the children shut up.

  23. "Abortion and rape are very similar."Right there? That was when you lost the debate.In any case, all of these discussions are futile since they boil down to one thing: you believe that a foetus has an immortal soul implanted or granted by God, and I don't. You're never going to persuade me, and I'm never going to persuade you.The difference between us is that you want to impose your view on other people, and I don't. My position is that if you're a woman who believes that the foetus has a soul, don't have an abortion; and if you don't believe that, then have an abortion. It's pretty simple.And no, abortion isn't like rape, because the woman isn't imposing her will on somebody else, because a foetus doesn't have a will. You ought to be more careful about what you say: a less charitable soul than myself might wonder if your hatred of rapists translated into a hatred of women.

  24. "The beliefs that men hold on abortion are no more irrelevant than the beliefs that women hold on rape."The beliefs of the man are far less relevant in both cases, since in both cases the body under discussion belongs to the woman.

  25. Pvblivs: I apologise if I wrongly identified you as a card-carrying theist who believes that the foetus possesses a soul. I realise now that this may not be the case, but if it isn't I would be interested to know on what basis you oppose abortion.

  26. "The beliefs that men hold on abortion are no more irrelevant than the beliefs that women hold on rape"I'm sorry, Pvbs, but I think you're dead wrong on this. Women are the VICTIMS of rape, men are NOT THE VICTIMS of abortion – this is a crucial difference.

  27. Paradox:     "you believe that a foetus has an immortal soul implanted or granted by God, and I don't."     Actually, you just lost the debate (although Alex hasn't.) Do you want to know how? You misrepresented my position. If you want to know my actual beliefs, you might try reading some of my blog posts. But anyone who tries to identify me as a christian has no clue as to what he is talking about.     "The beliefs of the man are far less relevant in both cases, since in both cases the body under discussion belongs to the woman."     You think that the body of the child belongs to the woman? Do you think this holds after birth, too? It is the child's body under discussion. As long as she doesn't harm the child, I don't care what a woman does with her own body. It is the child I want to protect.     "The difference between us is that you want to impose your view on other people, and I don't."     Really? I doubt that. Do you advocate for legalizing rape? If you think that rape is properly outlawed (as I do) then you want to impose your view on other people. Indeed, if you think any law is appropriate, you want to impose your view on other people. That's what laws are. Ideally, laws are imposed for the purpose of protection. But they wouldn't need to be codified if there weren't people who disagreed with them.     "You ought to be more careful about what you say: a less charitable soul than myself might wonder if your hatred of rapists translated into a hatred of women."     Interestingly, most women don't pursue abortion, much like most men don't pursue rape.

  28. " Interestingly, most women don't pursue abortion, much like most men don't pursue rape."Importantly, NO men pursue abortion.

  29.      No, Alex, the children are the victims of abortion. But they can't speak for themselves. But, if I were to take that attitude to heart, I would think there was no reason for laws against animal cruelty. Men may not be the victims of abortion; but they can still advocate on behalf of victims that cannot speak for themselves.

  30.      "Importantly, NO men pursue abortion."     I believe you mean "unimportantly." That is, of course, unless you want to tell that woman that she has no business calling her rapist a monster because you think only those in a position to act as perpetrators should have a say.

  31. Pvbs, I absolutely and utterly reject your attempt to equate abortion with rape.

  32. Alex:     Actually, abortion is worse than rape. In rape, the victim has some hope of fighting back. In abortion, the victim is completely helpless. But, if rape were legal, its supporters would "absolutely and utterly reject" attempts to equate it with anything they recognized as wrong.

  33. “Actually, you just lost the debate (although Alex hasn't.) Do you want to know how? You misrepresented my position. If you want to know my actual beliefs, you might try reading some of my blog posts.”1. If you read a bit more carefully, I did recognise that and apologised for misrepresenting your position after that initial post; and I also asked you to clarify your beliefs.2. I don't lose the debate simply because I misrepresented your position. While my first paragraph is inaccurate, the second two remain reasonable arguments.3. If you want us to understand your position, then write it down here, or point us to specific blog posts of yours which elucidate your position.4. If you hold that the human foetus holds equal rights to a human child, but not on religious grounds, then I would argue that your position is even less coherent than the standard Christian.“You think that the body of the child belongs to the woman?”I think the body of the child is essentially indistinguishable from the woman until such time as it becomes independently viable.“Do you advocate for legalizing rape? If you think that rape is properly outlawed (as I do) then you want to impose your view on other people.”I didn't say that this was a universal principle; I was referring to this case in particular. I don't advocate for legalizing rape because rape involves harm to another moral agent by another moral agent. Going back to my original point (but without the reference to your religious beliefs), the difference between us is that you believe a foetus is a particular type of moral agent and I do not.“Actually, abortion is worse than rape.”Now that's just silly.

  34. Paradox:     " If you read a bit more carefully, I did recognise that and apologised for misrepresenting your position after that initial post; and I also asked you to clarify your beliefs"     As it turns out, you posted that afterthought during the time that I was composing my reply. So, no, it was not on my screen.     "I don't lose the debate simply because I misrepresented your position. While my first paragraph is inaccurate, the second two remain reasonable arguments."     When you are so quick to declare me to have lost the debate on the grounds of your misrepresentation of my position, yes, you do.     "If you want us to understand your position, then write it down here, or point us to specific blog posts of yours which elucidate your position."     Alex, whom I was was addressing previously, is rather familiar with my position on christianity. I really didn't see the need to go on a verbose off-topic tangent so that random passers-by would not get confused. I'm sorry if this inconveniences you.     "If you hold that the human foetus holds equal rights to a human child, but not on religious grounds, then I would argue that your position is even less coherent than the standard Christian."     As your method of argument here is an unsupported declaration of "that's just silly" while completely ignoring my attached reasoning, I will suggest that it is your argument that is incoherent.     "I think the body of the child is essentially indistinguishable from the woman until such time as it becomes independently viable."     You do realize that, if that were actually the case, abortion would be impossible?     "I didn't say that this was a universal principle;"     It only makes sense as a criticism if you apply it as a universal principle. As it stands, you attempt to impose your will on people when you find something to be morally wrong, and you think that I should just shut up when I find something to be morally wrong and you don't agree. The difference between us is that you find torturing and killing a child still in the womb acceptable, and I do not. For anything you don't consider acceptable, you do attemp to impose your views on others. Imagine that.     "I don't advocate for legalizing rape because rape involves harm to another moral agent by another moral agent. Going back to my original point (but without the reference to your religious beliefs), the difference between us is that you believe a foetus is a particular type of moral agent and I do not."     We may be talking at cross purposes as to what constitutes a moral agent. I think of the term as applying only to those capable of understanding and adhering to moral principles. This excludes dogs and cats and even young children (even after birth.) By your stated reasoning, and my understanding of what a moral agent is, you would advocate legalizing animal cruelty and even smothering babies (after birth) or throwing them in dumpsters.

  35. “Alex, whom I was was addressing previously, is rather familiar with my position on christianity. I really didn't see the need to go on a verbose off-topic tangent so that random passers-by would not get confused.”Maybe he is, but I doubt that he's familiar with your position on abortion. I went to your website and read the three posts which referenced abortion directly, and your beliefs were no clearer there. So I'm interested to know what your beliefs are: do you believe that a foetus is a moral agent identical to an adult human, for example? If so, on what basis do you believe that?“You do realize that, if that were actually the case, abortion would be impossible?”Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, so I'll rephrase. It makes no more sense to talk of the foetus as being a separate entity to the woman's body than it does to talk about the woman's leg being a separate entity to the woman's body. In which case, abortion is perfectly possible in the same way that amputating a leg is possible.“It only makes sense as a criticism if you apply it as a universal principle.”No. It's perfectly coherent to believe that something is “wrong” as a universal principle, but that it is more or less “wrong” than an alternative. I'm not actually convinced there are universal principles.“As it stands, you attempt to impose your will on people when you find something to be morally wrong, and you think that I should just shut up when I find something to be morally wrong and you don't agree.”No, I didn't ever tell you to shut up. I pointed out that our discussion is unlikely to go anywhere productive if you believe (as I strongly suspect, but which you have not yet confirmed – again, apologies for the presumption) that foetuses possess a quality of X, which is also possessed by human adults (and possibly by animals? Your position there is unclear as well) but is not possessed by other things.“The difference between us is that you find torturing and killing a child still in the womb acceptable, and I do not. For anything you don't consider acceptable, you do attemp to impose your views on others.”No on both counts. I don't think a foetus is equivalent to “a child still in the womb” (at least not until a very late stage in the pregnancy – in fact, until after the point at which abortion is illegal). I don't find eating meat acceptable, but I don't attempt to impose my views on others; so nor do I attempt to impose my views on others in the broad sense that you suggest.“By your stated reasoning, and my understanding of what a moral agent is, you would advocate legalizing animal cruelty and even smothering babies (after birth) or throwing them in dumpsters.”I include animals with a certain level of intelligence as moral agents not in the standard sense of being able to distinguish between right and wrong, but in the slightly broader sense of being deserving of moral consideration. However I'm prepared to stop using the phrase in that sense if it confuses you; it's just a semantic issue.I don't advocate legalizing animal cruelty, although I don't actually advocate making it illegal either. I definitely don't advocate smothering babies, but I don't think that babies are morally equivalent to foetuses. That's the key difference between our positions, I think, but I still have no idea why you think they are equivalent.I am interested in continuing this discussion.

  36. p.s. I'm sorry I referred to your belief that abortion is worse than rape as silly, but I really do believe that it's a silly thing to say. Silly in the sense that it makes no sense, silly in the sense that it fails to advance your argument, silly in the sense of being needlessly offensive to suggest that a woman who is pregnant as the result of being raped is worse than than the man who raped her. Do you really believe that?

  37. I've always wondered: What would happen if the people who were going to abortion clinics were to pass out legal papers which contain a legally-binding promise to (at least try to adopt) the kids whom those people are trying to "save"?Tell them right out that if they will agree to adopt (a long legal process, mind you) the kids whose lives they're trying to save then they will decide to not have an abortion.

  38.      "in fact, until after the point at which abortion is illegal"     What point did you think that was? Under current law, a bullet to the brain is legal as long as there is a toe that still hasn't exited. That was part of the fuss surrounding "partial birth abortions."     "Maybe he is, but I doubt that he's familiar with your position on abortion."     As it turns out, you were criticizing me for not having specified my position on religion, such that your first thought was that my opposition to abortion was based my somehow being religious.     "but I still have no idea why you think they are equivalent"     If you keep talking about "equivalent," we are going to be at an impasse. I don't hold the various stages of development to be equivalent. For example, I don't consider a child to be equivalent to an adult. Rights (and responsibilities) grow as the individual develops. However, I consider the right not to be killed on a whim ("happy fun time") to set in very early.     "to suggest that a woman who is pregnant as the result of being raped is worse than than the man who raped her."     You will not find anyplace where I said getting pregnant was worse than rape. This is a clear misrepresentation of my position. I think that abortion is worse than rape. But, consider this. If she had decided to slit the child's throat (after birth) on the grounds that the father was a monster, would you consider that justified?     Now, I gave reasoning for why I think abortion to be worse than rape. You keep refusing to touch that.

  39. Hi Pvblivs,Once again, I apologise for misrepresenting your position. I thought it was fairly clear that I was referring to their actions rather than their states, but obviously it wasn't clear enough.“If she had decided to slit the child's throat (after birth) on the grounds that the father was a monster, would you consider that justified?”No.“Now, I gave reasoning for why I think abortion to be worse than rape. You keep refusing to touch that.”The argument you gave for why abortion is worse than rape is that a rape victim has some hope of fighting back, while “in abortion, the victim is completely helpless”. That argument doesn't follow if I don't accept that the foetus is a “victim” of abortion in the same way that the woman is a victim of rape (and it should be clear already that I don't accept that).The argument also makes no sense once you introduce animal cruelty, as you have. A newborn puppy can't fight back, but a teenager can – does that mean that killing a newborn puppy is worse than killing a teenager?So you're really confusing me here. On the one hand, you “don't hold the various stages of development to be equivalent” (which I would agree with); but on the other hand, you appear to think they're equivalent in some way, since you directly compare a rape victim to an abortion “victim”. Are they equivalent, or aren't they?“However, I consider the right not to be killed on a whim ("happy fun time") to set in very early.”So when do you consider the right to life to set in, and on what basis?

  40. Paradox:     It was abundantly clear to me what your purposes were when you said "a woman who is pregnant as the result of being raped" rather than "a woman who seeks an abortion." You want me to "admit" to something I do not hold and want to say that abortion has nothing to do with it.     "and it should be clear already that I don't accept that"     No, I suppose you wouldn't. You support abortion and have to deny automaticly that there can be a victim. Supporters of rape wouldn't accept that the woman raped was a victim either.     "does that mean that killing a newborn puppy is worse than killing a teenager?"     All else being equal, including the method of killing, yes.     "So you're really confusing me here. On the one hand, you 'don't hold the various stages of development to be equivalent' (which I would agree with); but on the other hand, you appear to think they're equivalent in some way"     You are feigning confusion because it is convenient to your purposes. If your confusion were genuine, you would be arguing that toddlers should be allowed to drive cars down the freeway. By the reasoning you are giving that neither toddlers nor adults should be smothered to death with a pillow makes them "equivalent." Since they are "equivalent" and adults have the right to drive cars, toddlers should too. Of course the reasoning is absurd. Just because we hold that some particular right(s) and expectation(s) apply to two entities does not mean that we hold them to be equivalent in any way. Equivalancy would require (at the very least) that I held all rights and expectations for the two to be identical. That doesn't apply, you know that doesn't apply. And yet, you keep trying to shoehorn the word "equivalent" in. You're being disingenuous. And I think you're trying to set up a strawman. Even worse, I think you are trying (unsuccessfully) to trick me into saying "yes" to your strawman.

  41. I've apologised for misrepresenting your position, but you seem to have taken it very personally. I'm not feigning confusion and I'm not trying to trick you into saying something stupid, I'm genuinely trying to have a dialogue because I find your position interesting.You want me to "admit" to something I do not hold and want to say that abortion has nothing to do with it.I'm not sure what you're referring to here. What I intended to convey is simply that you believe that a woman who gets an abortion following a rape is worse than the man who raped her. I now understand that your position hinges on the relative powerlessness of the victim, but I still can't accept that because I don't believe that an early-stage foetus has the same moral status as a fully-grown woman.“You support abortion and have to deny automaticly that there can be a victim.”I don't deny that there is a victim! I said that “I don't accept that the foetus is a “victim” of abortion in the same way that the woman is a victim of rape” because I don't believe that a foetus has the same moral status as a woman. For example, if the woman needed to have her leg amputated, you could legitimately say that the leg was a victim of amputation, but you wouldn't expect people to view such a victim of amputation in the same way as a victim of rape, and you definitely wouldn't claim that amputation was worse than rape. Since I view the early-stage foetus as essentially similar to the leg in its relationship to the woman's body, I don't think that rape and abortion can be compared in that way.“All else being equal, including the method of killing, yes.”I give you full credit for being consistent, but I'm sure that's not the only factor in your reasoning. For example, a virus in a petri dish is completely powerless, but I'm sure you wouldn't argue that killing that virus is worse than killing the teenager. What other factors are involved in your reasoning?“Just because we hold that some particular right(s) and expectation(s) apply to two entities does not mean that we hold them to be equivalent in any way.”I agree with you. My position is that a human foetus and a human adult are not equivalent, for exactly the reasons you outline. In particular I hold the position that the foetus and the adult are not equivalent in terms of their right to life.

  42. I realise that we may be unclear about each others' positions, and that we may not be clear about the area of disagreement. I am happy to clarify my position, and the reason I find your position interesting. To start, I'm not religious, I don't believe in an inherent right to life, and I believe that the right to life is socially constructed.I don't believe that a foetus has a right to life until it reaches a certain stage of development, but I also believe that we should err on the side of caution since that stage is not a single milestone. That stage is characterised by requirements of a) sentience and b) viability. The first is more philosophical and the second a more practical concern, although they aren't easily separated. As a result, I am comfortable with the idea of aborting a foetus that does not meet those requirements, although I'm painfully aware that this is a position made possible only by advances in scientific understanding of foetal development, and I worry about holding positions that are contingent on scientific findings!My puzzlement comes because, while I'm clearer about your position now, I'm still not clear about why you hold that position. My initial aggressiveness (for which I again apologise) came because I get frustrated by theists who hold that all human beings (including the foetus) possess Quality X (usually a soul) which lends them a right to life. It strikes me that not only is this position not supported by the evidence, it also fails to answer the question since it's not clear why having a soul lends one the right to life.Since you're not a theist, I assume that this isn't the source of your concern for the foetus, but I'm can't work out what the source of your concern actually is. Hence my confusion.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: