Guttmacher vs Worldometer on Abortion statistics

JVL, as BA77 pointed out, you have resorted to the argument from evils, which specifically targets ethical theism, of Which Christian Theology is a form. That argument collapsed 50 years ago as an academic project, it seems to keep on coming up as a rhetorical appeal. Of course, all of this is tangential to the evidence on the table of ongoing holocaust, and by extension how inconvenient evidence is too often treated. KFkairosfocus

January 4, 2021

January

01

Jan

4

04

2021

04:37 AM

4

04

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Moreover, one of the greatest proofs that morality really does, objectively, exist is the fact that it impossible for anyone, especially including atheists, to live their lives as if objective morality did not in fact exist. As the following article states: "Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath."

The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3

Richard Dawkins himself honestly admitted that it would be quote unquote 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialism were actually true

Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

And if it is 'intolerable' for you to live your life consistently as if the amorality of your atheism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/

I've been debating atheists for years, and it simply amazes me how anyone can willingly hold onto a worldview that is so easily refuted and which is so obviously false. And why anyone in their right mind would ever want to be an atheist is simply beyond my comprehension. Atheism is simply is a utterly false, incoherent, useless, and completely hopeless, worldview that simply has no redeeming qualities to it whatsoever. As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,”

“I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100

Atheism is simply a garbage worldview that brings misery on those who hold it as being true! It is truly sad, as the brilliant mathematician Leonhard Euler once observed, there are some people who are simply incapable of ever being reached by reason:

A DEFENSE OF THE (Divine) REVELATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF FREETHINKERS, BY MR. (Leonard) EULER?Excerpt: "The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible." http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/docs/translations/E092trans.pdf

bornagain77

January 4, 2021

January

01

Jan

4

04

2021

04:24 AM

4

04

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JVL asks,

Why does the number of miscarriages dwarf the number of intentional abortions? What causes that? Who designed the system where that happens?

This is a form of argument from atheists that is known as 'the argument from evil'. And it is a theologically based argument, not a scientifically based argument! i.e. Atheists try to claim that a loving God would never allow evil, i.e. death, suffering, (and in this case spontaneous abortions), etc..., to exist. John Avise used this particular theological argument in his book “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design”

It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012 Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design” (Dr. Cornelius Hunter goes on to comment) "There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way." – http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html

Elsewhere in his book John Avise stated,

“Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.” John C. Avise - Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57

I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

Mutation total (as of Jan. 4, 2021) - 189,186 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

Contrary to what Dr. Avise, and other Darwinists, may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of SCIENTIFIC evidence in favor of Darwinism! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against their Darwinian claims,,, That this SCIENTIFIC fact would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian ‘theology’ truly is in regards to the actual science at hand. i.e. Darwinists are apparently so biased against God in their ‘theology’ that it severely corrupts their ability to judge the scientific evidence itself in a unbiased manner. Moreover, the problem with the Theologically based 'argument from evil' gets worse for atheists, much worse. The trouble for atheists, (besides the fact 'the argument from evil' is a theological argument, not a scientific argument, and besides the fact that the entire Bible refutes their claim that God would not allow evil to exist in this world), is the fact that 'the argument from evil' is, in and of itself, a self refuting argument. Specifically, in their argument from evil, atheists hold that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.”

The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism - 2015 Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,, P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good. P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist. C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist. https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/

And yet this is, once again, a self defeating position for the atheist to be in. On the one hand, Atheistic materialists hold that morality is subjective and illusory. i.e. they hold that morality does not really exist.,,, As Dawkins himself succinctly put it, if atheism is true then there is "no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life Atheism’s Odd Relationship with Morality By Rabbi Adam Jacobs - 2011 Excerpt: As Dr. Will Provine has said, “[as an atheist] you give up hope that there is an imminent morality ... you can’t hope for there being any free will [and there is] ... no ultimate foundation for ethics.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/atheisms-odd-relationship_b_839352.html

And yet on the other hand, as David Wood puts it in the following article, By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there actually is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.

Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist - By David Wood Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

And as C.S. Lewis put it,

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.

Thus, in their “Argument from Evil” atheists have unwittingly, and inadvertently, conceded the existence of a objective moral standard to judge by and have, once again, refuted their very own worldview of Atheistic Materialism/Naturalism in the process. Simply put, if good and evil really do exist, as the atheist must hold in his argument from evil, then God must necessarily exist!

If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

As Michael Egnor states in the following article, "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,"

The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

bornagain77

January 4, 2021

January

01

Jan

4

04

2021

04:23 AM

4

04

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus: If you wish to attack Christian theology . . . Who says I was doing that? You say that. I'm asking: who designed such a system where upwards of a third of all conceptions end in miscarriage or stillbirths? I don't think anyone did design such a system which is why it sometimes goes haywire. You think it was designed so why was it designed that way? That unborn, wanted innocents sometimes miscarry or are stillborn? It doesn't make sense to me as a designed system. It's cruel and wasteful and personally traumatic. What's the point of starting a life and then ending so early?JVL

January 4, 2021

January

01

Jan

4

04

2021

04:20 AM

4

04

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PPS, Sev, what part of thou shalt not willfully shed innocent blood is it that is so hard to understand? It seems, you need to be reminded of the logic of the greatest-- double force -- commandment Jesus taught, per Paul -- and yes the Golden Rule is in the Sermon:

Matt 7: 11 If you then, evil (sinful by nature) as you are, know how to give good and advantageous gifts to your children [--> contrast, robbing your children of life itself], how much more will your Father who is in heaven [perfect as He is] give what is good and advantageous to those who keep on asking Him. 12 “So then, in everything treat others the same way you want them to treat you, for this is [the essence of] the Law and the [writings of the] Prophets. Matt 22:34 Now when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced (muzzled) the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 One of them, a lawyer [an expert in Mosaic Law], asked Jesus a question, to test Him: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 And Jesus replied to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself [that is, unselfishly seek the best or higher good for others].’ 40 The whole Law and the [writings of the] Prophets depend on these two commandments.” Paul's mini-exposition, Rom 13:8 [b]Owe nothing to anyone except to [c]love and seek the best for one another; for he who [unselfishly] loves his neighbor has fulfilled the [essence of the] law [relating to one’s fellowman]. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal [--> including, plainly, another's life], you shall not covet,” and any other commandment are summed up in this statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor [it never hurts anyone]. Therefore [unselfish] love is the fulfillment of the Law. [AMP]

No, the "Jesus never taught X" objection fails here and generally. Notice from opening remarks of the Sermon on the Mount: "Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to do away with or undo the [f]Law [of Moses] or the [writings of the] Prophets; I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."kairosfocus

January 4, 2021

January

01

Jan

4

04

2021

03:03 AM

3

03

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sev and JVL et al, Marfin is right:

so let me just get this straight , you are saying is that because there is death via sickness , disease , old age then there is no such thing as murder . By equating miscarriage and abortion this is exactly what you are doing.

And meanwhile, let us notice what is being distracted from, documentation that the current toll of willful mass killing of innocents in the womb is 42 - 73 millions, on credible sources. (Contrast the global reactions and finger-pointing over a toll that is 1/20 to 1/35th that.) KF PS: If you wish to attack Christian theology, start with why that theology holds that there is a breakdown of bodily function that imposes mortality; note, the explicit link in that theology to struggle to do right and think straight -- phenomena that are undeniable and universal. Note, too, the eschatological resolution of the underlying problem of evils and linked suffering; while we are at it kindly note that Plantinga shattered the force of the problem of evil 50 years ago so it is a case of rhetoric not worldview warrant now. (Cf. here on for 101.) Then, kindly observe the failure of the implicit alternative to account for the functionally specific complex organisation and associated information in cell based life much less the human body plan [when you can account soundly for such FSCO/I on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity you have something worth attending to, but not otherwise . . . this includes your proposed redesign of human reproductive biology per blind forces]. Likewise, you would be well advised to attend to the focal offer of warrant for the Christian faith, if you are truly interested in soundly addressing major civilisational alternatives on the merits instead of setting up and knocking over distractive strawmen. In the meanwhile it is manifest per cognitive dissonance that you cannot defend the slaughter of 800k - 1.4 million innocents per week, so you have tried to divert focus.kairosfocus

January 4, 2021

January

01

Jan

4

04

2021

02:43 AM

2

02

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ET: But JVL wants to blame someone for our unhealthy lifestyles, pollution and genetic entropy. He’s like a dog that looks at the finger and not where it is pointing. I am not calling out any of those things. You just made that up. Besides, if genetic entropy was a 'thing' then the number of spontaneous abortions should be growing every year. But it's not. Why don't you try and address the point that the number of spontaneous, non-intentional abortions dwarfs the intentional ones and why is no one trying to do something about that.? Marfin: JVL & SEV so let me just get this straight , you are saying is that because there is death via sickness , disease , old age then there is no such thing as murder . By equating miscarriage and abortion this is exactly what you are doing. No, that is not what I am doing. That is your own interpretation. Why does the number of miscarriages dwarf the number of intentional abortions? What causes that? Who designed the system where that happens?JVL

January 4, 2021

January

01

Jan

4

04

2021

02:06 AM

2

02

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JVL & SEV so let me just get this straight , you are saying is that because there is death via sickness , disease , old age then there is no such thing as murder . By equating miscarriage and abortion this is exactly what you are doing.Marfin

January 4, 2021

January

01

Jan

4

04

2021

12:41 AM

12

12

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JVL, ever the infant, brings up the very reason why artificial abortions should be banned. Obviously the ability to propagate isn't a given, which makes all life very important. But JVL wants to blame someone for our unhealthy lifestyles, pollution and genetic entropy. He's like a dog that looks at the finger and not where it is pointing. Then seversky chimes in with its usual ignorance. No one claims that God made us. And even the Bible gives the reason for the deterioration that lead to our current state. SCIENCE says that life starts @ conception. That means any artificial attempt at ending that life is attempted murder. And all artificial abortions are murder. According to science.ET

January 3, 2021

January

01

Jan

3

03

2021

08:12 PM

8

08

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kairosfocus/6

JVL, you have propagandistically distorted the situation.

On the contrary, he makes a very pertinent point. According to Christian belief, we are God's creations. We are as He made us, including our extremely wasteful reproductive system. We did not make it so, He did. If we assume that He had the knowledge and the power to do otherwise but didn't then He is ultimately responsible for all those pre-natal lives lost. Worse than that, He appears not to care about that death rate, anymore than He cared about all those young lives that must have been lost in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or the Great Flood, again, cases where He had the knowledge and power to do otherwise. In fact, the Bible has little if anything to say about abortion. Jesus did not preach against it on the Sermon on the Mount. There is no specific Commandment against it, even though it would seem to be a more serious matter than the keeping of graven images or taking the Lord's name in vain, so what is the Scriptural warrant for the opposition to abortion if God does not seem to be too concerned?Seversky

January 3, 2021

January

01

Jan

3

03

2021

04:31 PM

4

04

31

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JVL, you have propagandistically distorted the situation. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a living member of our posterity, in his or her mother's womb. A miscarriage is an instance of the same natural death that ultimately claims us all, 100% die. We are mortal. Surely, you know the difference between natural death and deliberate killing. Nor does resort to a Latin term for a baby or child divert the point. That speaks volumes, through the framework of the mirror principle and cognitive dissonance. Your claims imply blame, i.e. adverse choice, but wish to project to the despised other. I suggest, rethink. As for innocents below age of accountability who die and others in similar condition, the theological answer on their souls is plain from that fact. KFkairosfocus

January 3, 2021

January

01

Jan

3

03

2021

03:59 PM

3

03

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Who should be held accountable for the unintended, natural abortions? If one-quarter to one-third of conceptions result in spontaneous abortions that number dwarfs the chosen abortions which means many, many, many more foetuses die from unintended abortions. If they also have souls what happens to them?JVL

January 3, 2021

January

01

Jan

3

03

2021

03:41 PM

3

03

41

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Naturally without the mothers consent is not an abortion. An abortion is a willful act to terminate the human life within the mother Before the year turned over I think it was at 42 million for abortions they were willful abortions On worldometer That is 42 million futures that were snuffed For some human right that isn’t really a right at allAaronS1978

January 2, 2021

January

01

Jan

2

02

2021

09:01 PM

9

09

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Unintended pregnancy" is NOT the ONLY reason for an abortion. Some times the Mom decides someplace in the middle that, well, she doesn't want THIS baby (Um, she broke up with the Dad and doesn't want any of his kids). Or Mom decides that the baby is making her SICK, and the simplest way to stop puking is to get rid of the baby. Reasons for getting an abortion vary by State, and so the simplest thing in most cases is for Mom to declare, on some legal form, that the pregnancy was an "accident", etc. In many US States, an abortion is permissible if the pregnancy was the result of "rape". Anti-abortionists, however, point out that the NAME of the "rapist" is not required. And actually arresting the alleged father for Rape is VERY uncommon. So the abortion clinic assist the Mom in gaming the local system. Some decades ago I saw actual, live action "medical treatment" for an embarrassing pregnancy (i.e., Mom didn't have a husband...) in West Africa. Some Wise Man in the village declared that the swelling in the woman's belly was NOT a developing human child. Instead, it was a demon of some sort that had crawled inside her. So the friends and neighbors took up sticks and BEAT the poor woman and her belly until SOMETHING bloody and misshapen popped out of her birth canal. Also note that there are VERY old versions of The Hippocratic Oath in which the doctor swears that he will NOT assist in an abortion (typically by providing drugs). But do check Wikipedia, the source of ALL human knowledge, wherein there is controversy over whether that prohibition came from Hippocrates or some Christian adding new words here and there to support Catholic teachings.mahuna

January 2, 2021

January

01

Jan

2

02

2021

03:36 PM

3

03

36

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

How many spontaneous abortions happen every year: ones that occur 'naturally' without the mother's consent? I've heard it might be as high as a third of all conceptions.JVL

January 2, 2021

January

01

Jan

2

02

2021

03:18 PM

3

03

18

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Guttmacher vs Worldometer on Abortion statistics, c. 2020kairosfocus

January 2, 2021

January

01

Jan

2

02

2021

01:53 PM

1

01

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link