• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Look who would be aborted!

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2000
Messages
25,327
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Jim Bakker: God Gave Us Scientists to Cure Cancer, But They “Were Aborted” – Friendly Atheist
“I believe America is cursed if we keep murdering our babies,” Bakker said. “I believe we are doomed as a nation — whatever you think, I don’t care, because I believe God says, ‘Thou shall not kill.’ And to murder our unborn babies, I don’t believe God can look [the other way].”

“This program could be an important cog to stop abortion in this country,” he added. “The thing we have done in America, we have killed our babies. We have killed the future of America. I told you the other day about a story, someone said they asked God, ‘Why haven’t we had a cure for cancer?’ And He said back, ‘I gave you two scientists that had the cure and both of them were aborted.’”
There are other versions of this argument, like ones involving composer Ludwig van Beethoven (Great Beethoven fallacy - RationalWiki). But one can argue the opposite.

In the little town of Braunau am Inn, Austria, near the German border, a certain Klara Poelzl has discovered in the fall of 1888 that she is pregnant. She and her husband, a minor customs official named Alois Schicklgruber, decide that they don't want to have a child at that time, so she gets an abortion.

In another little town, Gori, in Asian Georgia, Russian Empire, a certain Ekaterina Geladze has discovered in the summer of 1878 that she is pregnant. But she and her husband Vissarion Dzhugashvili are very poor and not sure that they want a child. So she gets an abortion.

In yet another little town, Hope, Arkansas, USA, a certain Virginia Dell Cassidy has discovered in the beginning of 1946 that she is pregnant. But her husband, William Jefferson Blythe, Jr., was perpetually on the road, and she was wondering what sort of father he would be. So she gets an abortion -- and her suspicions are confirmed three months later when he dies from a car accident.

In a big city, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, college student Ann Dunham discovered early in 1961 that she is pregnant by another college student, Barack Obama. But since she was in college, she did not think that she was in a good enough position to have a child. So she gets an abortion. Her suspicions were confirmed when the two later went their separate ways, she to the University of Washington in Seattle, and he to Harvard University.

In a bigger city, Chicago, Illinois, USA, a certain Dorothy Emma Howell discovered early in 1947 that she is pregnant by her husband Hugh Ellsworth Rodham. They decide that they don't want a child at that time, so she gets an abortion.
 
Here is a bigger list:

Julia Vipsania Agrippina ("the Elder") in 12 CE
Julia Augusta Agrippina ("the Younger") in 37 CE
Aminah bint Wahb in around 570
Hoelun in around 1161
Hüma Hatun in 1431
Nancy Hanks in 1808
Susannah Wedgwood in 1808
Henrietta Pressburg in 1817
Maria Alexandrovna Blank in 1869
Ekaterina Geladze in 1878
Sara Ann Delano in 1881
Rosa Maltoni in 1883
Klara Poelzl in 1888
Franziska Tiefenbrunn in 1892
Wen Qimei in 1893
Katharina Odenhausen in 1897
Anna Maria Heyder in 1900
Maria Schefferling in 1905
Lynetta Putnam in 1930
Nancy Lombardi in 1939
Dorothy Emma Howell in 1947
Virginia Dell Cassidy in 1946
Pauline LaFon in 1947
Betty Broder in 1952
Hamida al-Attas in 1956
Stanley Ann Dunham in 1961
 
I'm not sure that the apparent fallacy is actually real.
Yes, the non-existent Beethoven might be cancelled out by the subsequently non-existent Hitler, but the overall argument is STILL about letting people come into existence. At the heart of Jim Bakers argument is the belief that, on balance, neither Hitlers nor Beethovens abortion can be justified because both lives contribute something to the overall good. Hitlers existence brought out the good and evil in a lot of people. But what was the overall effect?

...But one can argue the opposite.
In the little town of Braunau am Inn, Austria, near the German border, a certain Klara Poelzl has discovered in the fall of 1888 that she is pregnant. She and her husband, a minor customs official named Alois Schicklgruber, decide that they don't want to have a child at that time, so she gets an abortion.

We can thank the Catholic Church for granting the exemption that allowed Hitlers (consanguineous) mum and dad to get married in the first place. :eek2:
 
Of course, if you believe God has a plan, then you would have to accept the fact that one in five women have miscarriages...as part of God's plan.

It would appear that God's abortion clinics are running around the clock as millions of natural abortions now fall into God's greater good category.
 
Christians are taught that faith is a virtue.

Faith is accepting conclusions without evidence.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for Jim Bakker to simply make things up and declare them to be true. All virtuous Christians will accept his truth claims without question. That's the whole point of telling people it is virtuous to accept conclusions without evidence. It's so religious leaders can make up anything they like and expect their followers to believe them.

This is how you end up with imams claiming that driving will cause women to get cancer in their lady parts, or Bakker making up this crap about aborted scientists that he can't possibly prove.

If Christians and Muslims unquestionably accept the talking donkey in the Bible or Mohammed flying into outer space on a winged horse, then why not crap like this as well?
 
It’s not so much the making up a plausible sounding just so story, it’s the very idea that such a Just so story is plausible. The very idea that a single person, in isolation, could be sent and if they were aborted nothing would happen, that all sane people should recoil against.

In terms of scientific or medical progress, the idea of lone genius coming from nowhere simply doesn’t fit what happens. Certainly we have an immensely anti-scientific tendency to pick the lucky chap, and it’s usually a chap, whatever the reality, and shower them with honours for something science has chipped away at for ages until he just happens to be at the right place and time surrounded by the right ideas and infrastructure to make a breakthrough. So you want to blame anyone, blame the people who have moved funding away from cancer research... oh, that would be...

That’s
 
Thanx to Lion IRC to working out the first one of my examples. Has anyone here tried any of the other ones?
 
I want to know if you put them in a certain order on purpose.
 
Here's another one:

Early in 1879, Anne Purcell decides that having five children is enough. So she gets an abortion.

Here's my list of who would have been aborted.


  • Julia Vipsania Agrippina (“the Elder”) in 12 CE — Caligula
  • Julia Augusta Agrippina (“the Younger”) in 37 CE — Nero
  • Aminah bint Wahb in around 570 — Mohammed, founder of Islam
  • Hoelun in around 1161 — Temüjin, a.k.a. Genghis Khan
  • Hüma Hatun in 1431 — Mehmed the Conqueror, of Constantinople
  • Nancy Hanks in 1808 — Abraham Lincoln
  • Susannah Wedgwood in 1808 — Charles Darwin
  • Henrietta Pressburg in 1817 — Karl Marx
  • Maria Alexandrovna Blank in 1869 — Vladimir Lenin
  • Ekaterina Geladze in 1878 — Joseph Stalin
  • Sara Ann Delano in 1881 — Franklin Delano Roosevelt
  • Rosa Maltoni in 1883 — Benito Mussolini
  • Klara Poelzl in 1888 — Adolf Hitler
  • Franziska Tiefenbrunn in 1892 — Hermann Goering
  • Wen Qimei in 1893 — Mao Zedong
  • Katharina Odenhausen in 1897 — Joseph Goebbels
  • Anna Maria Heyder in 1900 — Heinrich Himmler
  • Maria Schefferling in 1905 — Adolf Eichmann
  • Lynetta Putnam in 1930 — Jim Jones
  • Nancy Lombardi in 1939 — Nancy Pelosi
  • Dorothy Emma Howell in 1947 — Hillary Clinton
  • Virginia Dell Cassidy in 1946 — Bill Clinton
  • Pauline LaFon in 1947 — Al Gore
  • Betty Broder in 1952 — David Berkowitz, “Son of Sam”
  • Hamida al-Attas in 1956 — Osama bin Laden
  • Stanley Ann Dunham in 1961 — Barack Obama

 
I'm not sure that the apparent fallacy is actually real.
Yes, the non-existent Beethoven might be cancelled out by the subsequently non-existent Hitler, but the overall argument is STILL about letting people come into existence. At the heart of Jim Bakers argument is the belief that, on balance, neither Hitlers nor Beethovens abortion can be justified because both lives contribute something to the overall good. Hitlers existence brought out the good and evil in a lot of people. But what was the overall effect?

...But one can argue the opposite.
In the little town of Braunau am Inn, Austria, near the German border, a certain Klara Poelzl has discovered in the fall of 1888 that she is pregnant. She and her husband, a minor customs official named Alois Schicklgruber, decide that they don't want to have a child at that time, so she gets an abortion.

We can thank the Catholic Church for granting the exemption that allowed Hitlers (consanguineous) mum and dad to get married in the first place. :eek2:

It's an interesting cherry-picking of plusses and minuses. I often look at these "every life is sacred and look at what a tragedy it is for everything that has happened due to the evil termination of a valid soul," and I think about my own pregnancies and miscarriages - knowing for myself that those miscarriages were for a forming precursor to a baby and being fine with it - and knowing that for someone like Lion, he'd have such a hard time looking at my daughter knowing she only lived because her older sibling was murdered by God at 3 months' gestation to make way for her. How can one love the child that only exists because of the murderof another? Such a dark and twisted world they live in. (same is true for my son, btw, he only exists because the two before him were murdered by God's Plan™)
 
...knowing that for someone like Lion, he'd have such a hard time looking at my daughter knowing she only lived because her older sibling was murdered by God at 3 months' gestation to make way for her. How can one love the child that only exists because of the murderof another? Such a dark and twisted world they live in. (same is true for my son, btw, he only exists because the two before him were murdered by God's Plan™)

1. I don't think it's wise for you to troll me using your children as live bait.
2. Study more. Miscarriages aren't necessary or sufficient for healthy subsequent pregnancies.
3. Since you don't believe God exists, your miscarriages are (presumably) someone else's fault. Got a mirror handy?
 
...knowing that for someone like Lion, he'd have such a hard time looking at my daughter knowing she only lived because her older sibling was murdered by God at 3 months' gestation to make way for her. How can one love the child that only exists because of the murderof another? Such a dark and twisted world they live in. (same is true for my son, btw, he only exists because the two before him were murdered by God's Plan™)
1. I don't think it's wise for you to troll me using your children as live bait.
2. Study more. Miscarriages aren't necessary or sufficient for healthy subsequent pregnancies.
But she would not have tried to have as many children if she hadn't suffered those miscarriages.
3. Since you don't believe God exists, your miscarriages are (presumably) someone else's fault. Got a mirror handy?
There are more possibilities than the Xian God and her. A LOT more possibilities.


Here is who Anne Purcell would have aborted in 1879:

Margaret Sanger

 
Jim Bakker would be opposed to the abortion of a future Margaret Sanger
...because he is opposed to abortion

So there's no Beethoven fallacy here. It wouldn't matter whether an abortion ban saved the future inventor of a cure for cancer and the same ban also saved the life of a future inventor whose invention caused some new, equally devastating disease.

You see, it's just like the hypothetical trolley moral dilemma. if your pro-life ban on abortion here and now saves a real life and a potential Beethoven then you can claim partial credit for the music and account it as a moral victory for saving a life. But if that same ban allows a future Hitler to be born then you are not an accessory before the fact because - in the same way as you didn't write Beethovens music - Hitlers sin is on him not his parents or grandparents or pro-lifers.

There's no double standard or logical fallacy in us allowing Beethovens' parents to feel proud of their sons achievements while we simultaneously reassure Hitlers' parents that it's not their fault Hitler was a megalomaniac
 
I'll never understand why people are so cruel to one another. The best thing is to be suspicious of certain certainties and cling steadfast to love and forgiveness, tolerance and mutual respect. Love every child, and don't worry about what they might become, and don't worry about how they came to be. Love each and every one of them. I am pretty sure that if I had been Hitler's brother, or father, I would have loved him tremendously, when he was a child. But Hitler as an adult? I can only reserve judgment on such an enormous consideration. Since my two children are not mass murderers, I am, thankfully, relieved of having to bear such a gigantic and traumatic burden.
 
Lion IRC said:
3. Since you don't believe God exists, your miscarriages are (presumably) someone else's fault.
It seems much more probable that having a miscarriage, like catching a cold, or a headache, or just not getting pregnant while having unprotected sex, are in most cases no one's fault, even if sometimes they are. Why do you think the opposite is presumably the case?
 
I'm not sure that the apparent fallacy is actually real.
Yes, the non-existent Beethoven might be cancelled out by the subsequently non-existent Hitler, but the overall argument is STILL about letting people come into existence. At the heart of Jim Bakers argument is the belief that, on balance, neither Hitlers nor Beethovens abortion can be justified because both lives contribute something to the overall good. Hitlers existence brought out the good and evil in a lot of people. But what was the overall effect?

...But one can argue the opposite.
In the little town of Braunau am Inn, Austria, near the German border, a certain Klara Poelzl has discovered in the fall of 1888 that she is pregnant. She and her husband, a minor customs official named Alois Schicklgruber, decide that they don't want to have a child at that time, so she gets an abortion.

We can thank the Catholic Church for granting the exemption that allowed Hitlers (consanguineous) mum and dad to get married in the first place. :eek2:

A collection of cells in the first week of pregnancy cannot possibly have the faculties and capacity that are indicative of personhood unless you're going to start arguing that cows are people too.
 
...knowing that for someone like Lion, he'd have such a hard time looking at my daughter knowing she only lived because her older sibling was murdered by God at 3 months' gestation to make way for her. How can one love the child that only exists because of the murderof another? Such a dark and twisted world they live in. (same is true for my son, btw, he only exists because the two before him were murdered by God's Plan™)

1. I don't think it's wise for you to troll me using your children as live bait.
Dear boy, you and your ilk do it all the time. You take them as bait whether I offer it or not. It makes no difference. Me keeping them quiet from you doesn’t insultate them from the damages of your beliefs. What’s the worst that can happen? You condemn them to hell? You call them abomination? You try to pass laws to oppress them? You’ve done that before I write a word.
2. Study more. Miscarriages aren't necessary or sufficient for healthy subsequent pregnancies.

Study more. If that pregnancy had not miscarried, I would have been unable to conceive her, as I would have been pregnant already. The first “baby” had to be murdered in order for the womb to be empty for her.
3. Since you don't believe God exists, your miscarriages are (presumably) someone else's fault. Got a mirror handy?

See, this is exactly the twisted darkness I mentioned that your religion fosters.
Most pregnancies end in miscarriage (you’ll see numbers from 25% to over 50%. The higher numbers are those when the women are studied more closely, and early first week spontaneous abortions are also observed.) Study more. It’s not someone’s “fault” most of the time. It is merely that the right chemicals needed weren’t there in the right balances.

But I knew in advance that your answer would turn dark and cruel, as that is the core of your belief system.
 
I'm not sure that the apparent fallacy is actually real.
Yes, the non-existent Beethoven might be cancelled out by the subsequently non-existent Hitler, but the overall argument is STILL about letting people come into existence. At the heart of Jim Bakers argument is the belief that, on balance, neither Hitlers nor Beethovens abortion can be justified because both lives contribute something to the overall good. Hitlers existence brought out the good and evil in a lot of people. But what was the overall effect?
My eyeballs just barfed.
 
Why abort them? Why not wait until they are seven or eight, and murder them then, when they are starting to show the first signs of psychosis and you know you have a potentially dangerous person? I mean, the same risk factors are there either way, but a lot of people do make it out of the ghettoes without turning out to be horrible people... your system of euthanasia will be much more precise in its targeting if you wait for the first string of juvenile offenses to decide who to kill.
 
Back
Top Bottom