Northern Ireland Humanists to offer abortion ceremonies

After the recent liberalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Humanists immediately unveiled plans to make a few quid by offering abortion ceremonies.

While the humanist movement has, for some time, been offering a range of ceremonial services for secularists who want all the trappings of religion but none of the God stuff, abortion ceremonies are believed to be a world’s first.

“We wanted to celebrate this historic day of joy and bloodshed by offering people something unique and memorable for their abortions,” said Quentin Snarf, a humanist celebrant and founder of the pro-choice activist group, Upper-Middle Class Alliance Against Poor People Breeding.

“We humanists love our ceremonies and already offer lots of them – from wedding ceremonies to cat-naming ceremonies – so why not abortion? It is our most important sacrament, after all.”

With the first abortions in Northern Ireland set to take place during March 2020, Snarf is expecting demand to be high.

“We’ve already had hundreds of enquires, many of which from people who aren’t even pregnant yet!” said Snarf.

“We know from independently verified data that Northern Ireland’s wicked and antiquated pro-life laws were responsible for saving over 100,000 lives. While we can’t kill those people now, we can kill a future 100,000 – and what a better way to do that than with an abortion ceremony!”

Details are still sketchy as to what an abortion ceremony will involve exactly, but a spokesperson for Northern Ireland Humanists has confirmed that participants will be offered the chance to “pull off the first limb” or “crush the skull themselves” as part of the initiation ritual.

Four reasons why we need to rally for choice

A guest blog by Rally for Choice speaker, Evil-Lyn

Mmmmmmwwwwhhhyy hello there, comrades – hahahaha! I am Evil-Lyn, sorceress and harnesser of dark powers. Most of you will remember me as the evil witch from the hit 80s cartoon, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe – but I am also a compassionate and reason-filled proponent of abortion and bodily autonomy rights.

So – when the organisers of Belfast’s Rally for Choice reached out during their AGM seance and asked me to be one of their guest speakers, how could I refuse? Hahahaha! (I couldn’t).

Now that the dust has settled after a crazy weekend of marching and protesting around Belfast with 17 million (according to our academic) fellow pro-choice persons, I want to take the time to enlighten all you bigots and misogynists on why the choice to end a human life is necessary for progress.

Here are four reasons – hahahahaha!

1. Population control

As my enlightened pro-choice comrades often point out – usually over a glass of Ca’ di Rajo Lemoss Frizzante and a bowl of roasted chickpeas back at mine after watching a profound piece of abortion theatre at the MAC – the world is overcrowded. There’s at least 6 billion of us and counting. It is not possible for so many people to enjoy the splendours of our wonderful planet all at the same time without destroying it.

Something has to give.

Unfortunately, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. And by eggs, I mean fetuses. Abusing chickens of their eggs is disgusting and immoral.

This Facebook post from an academic at a leading NI University sums up our predicament perfectly:

IMG_20190909_213159

2. Clearing out the riff-raff

If you’ve ever had the misfortune of being in a “benefits lounge,” you’ll notice that poor people are rather unsightly. Not only that, they have a tendency to “muck about,” which means they can never get work or contribute to a meaningful society.

As our comrade Bernie Sanders explained recently, the answer to people living in poverty – especially in those savage third world countries – is to stop them from breeding. In other words, poor people are better off dead. And in pieces. And in a bin.

(As an added bonus, since the poor commit all the crimes, this approach is also useful for countries that don’t have the death penalty. Except it’s better, because the criminal can be taken out before a crime has even been committed – like in Minority Report – saving the Justice Department millions in taxpayers’ money).

IMG_0500
“Pro-choice, not Pro-letariat!” I screamed.

3. Improving the gene pool

If our amazing foremothers Marie Stopes and Margret Sanger, founders of the two biggest abortion enterprises in the universe, taught us anything it was that abortion “Is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives”.

This is true. When I visited Iceland a few moon cycles ago, my intention was to overthrow their government and seize control of their aluminium smelting plants. But then I discovered they had done great work in eradicating Down’s syndrome – a problem that has cursed my home planet of Eternia since the beginning of time – by eradicating those with Down’s syndrome! Genius – hahahaha!

So it follows, then, that since Iceland is often portrayed as a beacon of secular hope and progress, it would be prudent to follow their lead by allowing Northern Ireland to abort all its defectives, too. Those with Down’s syndrome, those with an FFA, those with a cleft palate, those with colic – the whole lot of them. Having a choice helps us achieve that.

IMG_0502
I genuinely don’t look out of place here.

4. People should be able to do whatever the f**k they want, you c**nts!

IMG_20190907_125459

While the first three reasons are closely linked, this one often gets overlooked, but it’s a vital component – if not the most important component – of everything that the pro-choice movement stands for, especially when it comes to sex. And that is the right to do whatever the f**k we want, whenever we want.

Five millennia ago I argued during my presidential campaign that laws should be based on a) how badly people want to do something and b) possession of a uterus or uteruses. Unfortunately, at the time, my home planet of Eternia was under the patriarchy of Skeletor, who took exception to my liberal fancies and banished me to a netherworld for ten thousand years.

IMG_0511
Skeletor and I have since reconciled. It was great to see him at the Rally and looking the part, alongside his long-term political ally, Eamonn McCann.

But I was right. Nihilism is the only viable option for governance. It’s true that some people argue that laws should be based on reason and merit, but do you notice how everyone who says that doesn’t have a uterus? Exactly – hahahaha! Shut up, you man*!

Hopefully, these reasons – and all of the lovely photographs you see of how wonderful and stable and measured we pro-choicers are – will have dragged you out of your religious stupor and into the 21st Century. But if not, well, DON’T LIKE ABORTION, DON’T HAVE ONE! – HAHAHAHA!

*By ‘man’ I am referring to those without wombs. I am aware that not everyone without a womb identifies as a man, making them a woman*. I mean no offence by this. I support you all.

* By ‘woman’ I am referring to those with wombs. I am aware that not everyone with a womb identifies as a woman and are actually men with wombs. To clarify, men who are women who are men who are women who are men with wombs and also women without wombs – I mean no offence. I support you all.

IMG_0505
Beast Man cheered up considerably after his Boojum.

Government to introduce ‘Atheism Studies’ as an alternative to RE for children of embarrassing atheist parents

Following an attempt by atheist parents to sue a Christian school for doing Christian stuff, the Department of Education announced that it will introduce ‘Atheism Studies’ as a ‘meaningiful and educational’ alternative for those wishing to opt their children out of RE – and to give those children some respite from their parents’ public displays of hyper-litigiousness.

Full details of the new subject have yet to be finalised, but a government source said it will cover the following key curriculum areas:

History

Instead of learning about the pyramids and Victorian child chimney sweeps, students of atheism will be taught the history of atheist thought, from reciting the nihilistic ramblings of Frederich Nietzsche to a VR tour of the Godless utopian paradise of Stalin’s Soviet Russia.

Field trips will include a visit to North Korea so as children can see first hand what official atheist government policy looks like in practice, which they can follow up with some labour camp building in Minecraft.

Science

Science lessons will focus exclusively on evidence for atheism. As such, the government has allocated a £50m budget for schools to rent out empty sheds for periods of up to five hundred million years so as children of atheists can observe how things can come from nothing.

Experiments like making and freezing slime will be replaced with experiments showing how slime, under the right conditions and given enough time, can become fully functioning members of society worthy of rights and personhood.

The Arts

Those taking Atheism Studies can dispense with the Christmas nativity and instead do a play based on atheist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel, Being and Nothingness.

Pupils will get to dress up as their favourite atheist and lounge around the stage smoking cigarettes, contemplating the merits of living a conflicted life of misery and pleasure versus simply committing suicide.

Welcoming today’s announcement, secular campaigner Casper Sage Floyd said: ‘This is great progress. Even though I believe you get to make your own meaning in life, religious meaning is more meaningless than atheist meaning. And even though I believe that morality is subjective, it is objectively wrong to indoctrinate kids. As as a society we need to be tolerant and inclusive, which is why we must banish religion to the ideological gulags – or else.”

However, some atheist parents did express concern, particularly over the use of Sartre’s books given the author’s well-documented and sordid sex life. Although plans to teach primary school children that sex between two and any number of people is acceptable so long as it’s consensual were warmly received by all.

Amnesty NI is hiring a new abortion campaigns assistant. Here are some excellent candidates

In a recent Tweet, Northern Ireland’s leading abortion baron, Grainne Teggart, announced that Amnesty NI is seeking to recruit a new Campaigns Assistant to help quicken the right to end pre-born human life in Northern Ireland.

Since the job will require a ruthless passion for human destruction, a knack for philosophical hand waving, and profound ignorance of the science of embryology, the pool of suitable candidates is likely to be very small.

But fear not! The Belfast Bigot is on hand to offer these capable recommendations:

Xenomorph Queen

The bookies’ favourite. In every hive that she’s been in charge of, Xenomorph Queen has successfully raised hundreds of fearless Drones and Warriors, making her ideally suited to Amnesty’s activist ethic. She’s also a mother, giving her extra moral authority when deciding who can and can’t live, and she understands the value of choice having once “shouted” the abortions of twenty-six of her own face-huggers after they failed to develop correctly in the egg. Downside: she poses a significant risk to Grainne’s job.

Runner_2

“MY BODY, MY CHOICCCCCCCCCCCCZZZZ!”

Baraka from Mortal Kombat

As a member of a nomadic mutant community, Baraka knows all too well what it’s like being part of an oppressed people. While he doesn’t have a womb, his marginalised status allows him to empathise with marginalised womb owners who want to kill their own offspring. Most importantly, as a loyal warrior with blades protruding from his arms, he will fight to the death for those whom he calls “master,” making him an exceptional candidate for Grainne’s needs.

baraka

“Mmmmmaaaaaadon’t like abortion, don’t have one!”

Gozer the Gozarian

Being a dead-on, everyday person who can speak the language of those on the ground is a core requirement for any Amnesty employee. In that regard, Gozer, pictured below, would blend right in at your local Choice rally or vegan cat cafe. Plus, her ability to summon large demonic beasts to destroy dissenters should not be overlooked. Downside: being a god, Gozer would bring an unwanted religious element to Amnesty’s secular culture, thereby violating the separation of church and state, and running the risk of bringing Grainne out in hives during TV interviews.

gozer

“Are you pro-chooooooooice?…. then die!!!!!”

Beverley Allit

Many of you may remember Beverly as the NHS nurse found guilty of killing several babies in her care in the early 1990s, but the term “killing” is harsh. Beverly’s problem was that the healthcare she delivered took place on the wrong side of the birth canal. Other than that, she exhibited all of the compassion and empathy expected of any heroic healthcare rights campaigner. The obvious issue is her current incarceration, but Amnesty has a great track record of working with the falsely imprisoned, so maybe they can come to an arrangement.

A massive cast iron hammer and sickle

Not necessarily because of the communist connection – though that would of course rouse and delight many abortion advocates – but as a symbol of the tools needed for an abortion procedure; a hammer to crush skulls and a blade for lopping and chopping limbs. It also works as a beautiful and profound woke metaphor for a woman’s struggle for reproductive freedom (because the patriarchy made these tools heavy and hard to carry). Downside: no real word processing skills.

Other worthwhile mentions: Dawn Purvis, Momo, and the demonic form of Marie Stopes.

EXCLUSIVE: Boojum set to mock Mohammed during Ramadan, gay icon during Pride Week

Following the publicity-grabbing success of its Easter meme which mocked the risen Christ, a representative for the overrated quasi-Mexican restaurant chain, Boojum – famous for its sticky floors and nappy-style burritos – has revealed similar plans to mock the prophet Mohammed during Ramadan, and the veteran gay rights activist Peter Tatchell during Pride Week.

After some pushback from Christian former-customers who found the Easter meme offensive, Boojum’s management responded by saying their aim is to offend all people groups equally, not just easy targets.

“Our next meme will go up during Ramadan and will depict Mohammed having the Koran revealed to him by an angel, but – get this, right – instead of the Koran, it’ll be a big burrito! And the caption will read: “When the only thing worth revealing is a Boojum!”

He added: “We’ve already hired a graphic design student to photoshop an image of Mohammed kneeling before a burrito with a speech bubble coming from his mouth saying: “Allah Akbar! I knew I smelled Boojum!”

“F***ing hil-are, isn’t it?” said Boojum’s impossibly cool and radical PR manager and Head of Banter, Sye Merkin.

“And then, during Pride Week, we’ll post a meme depicting the veteran gay rights activist, Peter Tatchell, coming out of an actual closet, but instead of finding tolerance and acceptance, he’ll find a trio of tacos!

And the caption will read: “When the only thing worth coming out for is a Boojum!” with the speech bubble saying: “Heeeey! I knew I smelled Boojum!”

Merkin continued: “Mocking Christianity – especially during its most significant time of the year and, so I’m told, at a time when hundreds of its adherents were murdered for their beliefs – is not at all insensitive and crass or devoid of wit and creativity; it’s the kind of super original, cutting edge comedy that sets Boojum above the other higher quality, more authentic Mexican restaurants in the country.

That’s why we’re going to up our banter game even more by going after Islam and homosexuality!”

“Yeooooo!” he added.

In a separate radio interview, Boojum reaffirmed its commitment to equality by revealing additional plans to mock Bobby Sands during the upcoming hunger strike commemorations in August, and King Billy during the Twelfth fortnight.

What exactly is an atheist anyway?

For as long as humans have been shaking their fists skyward, the term ‘atheist’ has been used to describe a belief that there is no God. However, since the popularisation of New Atheism a decade or so ago, there has been a concerted attempt – a revisionist attempt – by some atheists to redefine atheism as ‘a lack of belief’. In other words, for these atheists, atheism is not a positive belief that God does not exist, but rather something that entails no belief at all – it is simply a lack of belief.

The reason for this is simple: defining atheism this way makes it easier for the atheist to defend their position because there’s nothing to defend. You don’t have to defend a non-belief. And if there’s nothing to defend, you don’t have to shoulder the burden of proof.

If I were an atheist, however, I wouldn’t go down this path. Not only is this definition a departure from the language that we’ve all agreed on – the same language that allows us to have fruitful discussions – but it’s intellectually dishonest. It’s dishonest because there are only three possible answers to the question “Does God exist?”

“Yes” (theist)

“No” (atheist)

“I don’t know” (agnostic)

By replacing this common sense and historically-understood definition with a convoluted and self-serving one (“I’m a freethinking open-minded anti-theistic accommodationist explicit uppercase agnostic-Atheist… or “bright” for short!”) is just linguistic legerdemain that helps no one, least of all the atheist.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that there’s no such thing as a ‘lack of belief’. There is. For example, when it comes to which is the best curling team in Uzbekistan, I lack a belief. I have no information on the subject, nor do I care to find out. I genuinely lack a belief in the Uzbekistani curling scene.

But if you’ve ever listened to an atheist – particularly of the Stetson-wearing, goateed YouTube channel variety – it quickly becomes obvious that they don’t behave like they lack a belief about God. They have lots of beliefs about God, so much so that they write book after book, participate in debate after debate, and create YouTube video after YouTube video to espouse them. They even have their own logo! Now, I don’t know about most people, but I’ve yet to create a logo to express a lack of belief, and – having never had a skunkweed habit – don’t have the desire to.

Now, if an atheist wants to say, “I don’t have a belief in God” – that’s fair enough. They don’t have faith in God because they don’t think that God is real. But that is not the same as saying, “I don’t have a belief about God”. They do have a belief about God – lots of them – chiefly that God doesn’t exist. And if you hold a belief, and there is a justification for holding that belief, then you ought to be forthcoming about it.

But perhaps the most bizarre aspect of defining atheism as a lack of belief is that a lack of belief describes a psychological state; it tells us absolutely nothing about whether God exists or not. In other words, if atheism is merely a lack of belief then toasters, USB sticks, chickens, and my cat, John Knox, are also atheists since they too lack a belief in God. It also means that atheism can never be true or false (because only claims can be true or false), rendering it meaningless and, let’s be honest, a bit boring.

curling_bonspiel_winter_sport_ice_rink_stones-866647.jpg!d

Curling – a game in which players must slide polished atheists across some ice.

To be clear, I’m not saying that atheism is a religion – that job goes to Humanism – but it is definitely a belief, meaning that atheists – along with Christians, to be fair – must shoulder the burden of proof to support their position. If an atheist asserts – as they do – that only natural and material things exist, then they need to make a persuasive and principled argument for how immaterial things like logic, consciousness, evil, morality, mathematics, etc. are the accidental byproducts of exclusively natural causes.

Unfortunately, many of the atheists that I’ve engaged with – as lovely as they all are – seem most comfortable when critiquing the beliefs of others than when offering a robust defence of their own. This, I suspect, is because they know they can’t, for the more we learn about the complexities of the natural world, the more implausible a purely natural explanation becomes. In fact, a purely natural explanation for all of reality is, in theory, impossible because anything capable of creating nature would have to come from outside of nature and would be, by definition, supernatural – hence the desire to retreat to a boutique definition of atheism.

Sorry, Fionola Meredith – arguments have no gender. Abortion is still wrong even if a man says it

Fallacious arguments are a bit like Where’s Wally?. Once you learn how to spot Wally, you can easily spot him on every page. Similarly, once you learn how to identify logical fallacies – no matter how eloquently put – they leap off the page and beat you over the head with a hurley bat.

I mention this because, after reading this article by Fionola Meredith, I got beaten so badly by a whole gang of fallacies that I had to be rushed to intellectual A&E.

According to Fionola, some men aren’t qualified to speak on abortion because “murdering the little babies” is the sole reserve of those with a womb. But since pro-life men use exactly the same arguments as pro-life women, it is incumbent upon Fionola to answer these arguments without resorting to fallaciously attacking someone’s gender or making unqualified assumptions about their character. Does she do that? Nope. In fact, the entire article is who’s who (what’s what?) of logical errors, from name-calling and emotional appeals to wild and unqualified assumptions. There’s even some amateur psychology in there too for good measure.

Some of these angry, heartless men call themselves Christians. That’s a sick joke. If you’re such a champion of the unborn foetus that you can’t spare an ounce of compassion for a raped child, then what does your faith count for?

Let’s assume that these men are angry and heartless. In fact, while we’re in prejudice mode, let’s make them tax dodgers and drug dealers too. They’re horrible, compassionless, hypocritical, drug-dealing, tax-dodging, pro-life Christian scummers. And they stole the lead off yer Da’s shed. So now what follows? Nothing. Abortion is still the intentional taking of innocent human life.

What we see here – and in the following four (!) paragraphs – is a commitment to the ad-hominem fallacy – that is, attacking people (who she’s never met) as opposed to their ideas in lieu of making a persuasive case of her own. It’s just name-calling. And name-calling is not an argument.

Notice also that she attacks a strawman – the intentional misrepresentation of an opponent that is easier to defeat than their actual view. I’ve yet to meet any pro-lifer who wouldn’t have compassion for a raped child. Such a charge is as ridiculous as it is unfounded. But it also cuts both ways. If you’re such a champion of raped children that you can’t spare an ounce of compassion for the child heading for the abortion chopping block, then what does your egalitarian secularism count for? See how that works?

A much better approach – and one desperately needed in our wee divided country – is to advance actual arguments that must be defended. Arguments that stand or fall on their merits, not the gender (or colour, or race, or religion, .etc) of those espousing them.

It’s true that we frequently hear female voices who are implacably opposed to abortion in all circumstances, although I’ve never yet heard one of them give a satisfactory answer as to why any girl or woman should be forced to give birth to a child she does not want.

The answer is simple and wholly satisfactory to any right-thinking person: the value of human life is not determined by wantedness. A woman should not be able to poison alive / methodically dismember her unborn child because she does not want her, any more than she should be able to poison alive / methodically dismember her two-year-old for the same reason.

Again, the gender of the person making this point is completely irrelevant – it is either true or false on its own merit – but since you mention it, there are countless female pro-life leaders articulating this basic philosophical truth in the world today. In fact, the whole pro-life movement is headed up and staffed almost exclusively by women. There’s at least a dozen of them in NI alone. Why not meet with them if you’re still unclear?

I think they are motivated by something far more base, ugly and deplorable. I believe they are driven by contempt for women, a desire to control them and to have dominion over their bodies.

Listen to the vitriol in the words they use. What you’re hearing, echoing down the millennia from the dawn of time, is misogyny: an ancient fear, suspicion and resentment of women and their extraordinary power to give birth.

There’s no doubt that Fionola is a talented writer and articulate speaker (as much as I disagree with some of her views, I enjoy listening to her on the radio and reading her articles), but she’s no psychiatrist. All of this is mere conjecture that lies outside the bounds of her knowledge and expertise. How does she know what drives someone? Is she qualified to make statements about someone’s personal psychology? I doubt it. Is she privy to their medical records? I hope not. This is yet more name-calling, just made a little more sophisticated by wrapping it up in pseudo-psychology and poetic language.

And who are these suspicious and contemptuous men anyway? Big Ivor Bogroll she heard on the Nolan Show? Well, she might have a point with Big Ivor – I once saw him eat a plastic fork in a KFC outside Lurgan – but she hasn’t mentioned any names, or provided any evidence of these alleged transgressions, just assumptions and generalisations and someone she heard on the Nolan Show. This is not journalism – or even a thoughtful opinion piece – it’s naked activism.

Men can never know what it is like to experience a crisis pregnancy. They will never grapple with the horror and fear. They will never have to take out a bank loan to fund their personal travel expenses to England, or to make the lonely, disorienting journey there and back.

Consider this: Fionola will never know what it’s like to fight in a war. She will never grapple with horror and fear. She will never have to survive on benefits or struggle with PTSD. Therefore, Fionola doesn’t get to decide whether the army can torture war prisoners or not.

That’s a pretty bizarre argument, don’t you think? So, why would discussing other moral issues like abortion be any different? It’s true that gender perspectives on abortion can help us understand the personal experience, but they are no substitute for rational inquiry.

The abortion question does not hinge on gender or personal experiences (indeed, many women will never know what those things are like, either), but whether or not the unborn child has value and is worthy of protection. Would she make the same appeal to emotion if the debate were about killing toddlers instead of fetuses?

But ultimately it won’t be the man’s decision, nor should it be. Their views count for less, and rightly have no legal weight, because it is the woman who carries the child. She deals with the immediate physical reality of the pregnancy, as well as the lifelong impact of giving birth to another human being.

OK – if men can’t make decisions on abortion, then the 1967 Abortion Act is bad law. After all, it was introduced by David Steel, a man, and backed by a government comprising entirely of men. The same goes for Roe V. Wade in America which was passed by nine male judges. Of course, Fionola likely believes that the views of those men – and today’s male abortion lawmakers like Simon Harris and Leo Varadkar – do not count for less and have plenty of legal weight because she agrees with them.

So what this all amounts to, then – even with a shoe-horned attempt at balance by referencing the “kindly pro-life men” she knows – is the silencing of those she disagrees with based purely on their gender. Think about that for a second. Isn’t that the very base, ugly and deplorable trait that she claims to detest in others?

Abort thy neighbour: a response to abortion-choice Christians

When coming up with a title for this piece, I resisted the temptation to put the word ‘Christians’ in scare quotes – “Christians” – which would imply that abortion-choice Christians aren’t really Christians at all. But I don’t think that necessarily follows. Our status as Christians – our salvation – is, thankfully, not determined by our views on social issues, but by our view of Christ – as antithetical as abortion is to the teachings of Christ.

Which brings us on to this video, which features three self-identified Christians extolling the virtues of “choice”. By “choice,” of course, they don’t mean picking a flavour of ice cream; they mean the choice to intentionally take a human life. They mean “abortion”.

The truth is, I don’t know if those in this video are genuine Christians or not. Don’t get me wrong, they exhibit all the hallmarks of spiritual-but-functionally-atheist nominal churchgoers (they never actually mention Christ in defence of their views, rather give primacy to feelings and opinions) – but I could be wrong. What I do know, however, is that once you get past the emotional appeals and question-begging, there isn’t a single compelling argument for abortion to be found anywhere in this video. Not one. Let’s take a closer look.

“I’m actually getting emotional” (00:00)

Nobody does emotion better than the abortion lobby. If they aren’t appealing to difficult and rare cases (“What about a diabetic one-legged mother-of-ten with crippling sciatica and hypersexual bipolar disorder, who works down a mineshaft on a zero-hour contract?!?! How could you deny her an abortion?!?! HOW???”) – they get upset. And true to form, this video plays that card straightaway; the music is touching, the lighting is soft, eyes are teary. Only a vile monster would disagree now.

2lnm5e

“I think God put us on this earth. He gave us choices, He gave us freedom” (00:20)

White belt abortion-choicers, for the most part, believe that an unborn child is not fully human. But instead of trying to argue their case with science and reason, they merely assume it to be true. This is a logical fallacy called “question-begging,” and it can be found running free and wild throughout this video.

Case in point: the statement above assumes that because choice and freedom are in principle good things, it follows that the freedom to choose an abortion is also a good thing. But nowhere does the interviewee even attempt to justify this claim. It’s all assumed within her rhetoric. Is racism a good choice? What about the freedom to rape or commit tax fraud? Oh, I see. She only means the choices she agrees with. Ah.

Well, excuse me while I choose which puppy to test my new taser on.

“Love your neighbour as you love yourself. I couldn’t look my neighbour in the eye if I denied them healthcare.” (00:46)

But here, at least his neighbour still has eyes (01:17).

Who said anything about denying people healthcare? No-one. This is a strawman statement – an intentional misrepresentation of the pro-life view that is easier to defeat than an actual pro-life argument, such as:

  1. It is wrong to take an innocent human life (sound philosophy)
  2. Abortion takes an innocent human life (accurate science)
  3. Therefore, abortion is wrong (logical conclusion)

Or maybe he’s confused and doesn’t know that the slow and methodical dismemberment of a live human being isn’t healthcare. If only he had Googled some abortion-victim photos before being interviewed, then he would’ve seen how recipients of abortion don’t look particularly healthy or cared for.

From a Christian perspective, though, the pertinent question to ask here is: “who qualifies as my neighbour?” Is it the Christian view which tells us that every human being is created equal in the image of God and therefore worthy of the title ‘neighbour’? Or is it the time-period-and-culture-dependant secular humanist view which holds that human beings are valuable only in virtue of their location, their size and their level of physical and mental development?

Careful which horse you back there, fella. History has not been kind to those secular rulers and governments that took seriously the idea that human beings are nothing but the product of blind natural forces.

2lnpe4

“My decision to not have an abortion due to my faith, shouldn’t dictate other people’s choices.” (01:10)

But wait! Why not have an abortion? Is abortion wrong? Is it because you think abortion kills an innocent human being? Is that not a good reason to dictate other people’s choices? Isn’t that how civilisation works?

Society dictates what people can and can’t choose all the time. It’s not a matter of if choices will be dictated, but which choices will be dictated. If pro-lifers impose their views on women and doctors, then abortion-choicers impose their views on the unborn. And only one of those views ends with a broken corpse in a petri dish.

“Being told by people who have encouraged me to become Christian that my opinion is wrong, or that the bible says something that contradicts my opinion is quite hard for me to hear.” (01:15)

Yet more question-begging. This is just a personal perspective that tells us absolutely nothing about why other Christians are wrong and she is right. No attempt has been made to defend her views, or to justify the act of abortion; she just assumes she’s right.

It’s almost as if all the interviewees suffer from some sort of mental disorder that restricts their ability to even fathom how other people could possibly disagree with them, to the point where they don’t even feel the need to defend their position. Either that or it’s just intellectual laziness.

For the record, the bible does contradict her. Scripture is clear that all humans have intrinsic value because they are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28; James 3:9). In other words, humans are valuable in virtue of the thing they are, not because of what they can do – and especially not because of someone’s opinion.

Therefore, since human beings are made in God’s image, unjustly killing them is wrong (Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 6:16-19; Matthew 5:21). What makes the pro-lifer’s job easy here is that science confirms beyond all doubt that the unborn are whole and distinct human beings, so it follows that any scripture that forbids the unjust killing of human beings must also apply to unborn human beings.

That you find it hard to hear doesn’t change things.

“I just don’t want to make those choices for other women. I’m not pro-abortion, I’m pro-choice” (01:38)

This isn’t about pro-choice versus anti-choice. Pro-lifers are staunchly pro-choice when it comes to many things: the right to vote, to choose your own partner, to choose your own religion, to choose your education, to choose a career, to choose to shave your head and paint yourself blue. They just believe that some choices are wrong, like killing little ones. Therefore, the important distinction here is that you are pro-abortion.

Pro-abortion feminist and activist, Camille Paglia, calls the term “pro-choice” a “cowardly euphemism”. She believes that those who are pro-abortion must face what they are opposing – the right to life for every member of the human family. If you’re going to be in favour of something so obviously – and necessarily – destructive and discriminatory as abortion, at least have the courage of your convictions to tell it like it is.

Why every Christian should be pro-life

If humans only have value in virtue of the things they can do, or because of the landmarks they have reached, like the ability to breathe independently, express self-awareness, or pass seven inches down a birth canal – things that differ from human to human – then it follows that human equality isn’t actually a thing. It just depends on how the people in power dish it out.

But Christians tell a better story. It’s much more persuasive and reasonable to ground human rights in the idea that although humans vary greatly in their mental and physical abilities and characteristics, they are all still perfectly equal because they share a common humanity, made in the image of a personal and just triune God.

If you think right and wrong exist above the law, you’d be right. But that’s theism.

Where now for secular humanists, atheists and other moral relativists who profoundly disagree with the Ashers ruling? The outrage currently coming from their various corners is palpable, but it only highlights their inconsistency when it comes to the Moral Project, and exposes their faulty understanding of human rights and what it means to be human.

Let me explain. Human rights can only come from one of three sources: 1) God, 2) Nature or 3) governments. Those who subscribe to an atheistic and/or strictly secular worldview reject God outright. Grand. That leaves Nature and governments. We can all agree, I think, that Nature is an amoral and impersonal force that thrives on violence and discrimination. Nature might bless you with the genes needed to live a long and prosperous life, or it might chuck a tree at your caravan. So that’s Nature out. That leaves governments – which brings us to the Ashers case.

As far as strict secularists and the Ashers case are concerned, the highest court in one of the most enlightened and progressive civilisations on earth has ruled emphatically that what they sincerely thought was a human rights violation was in fact nothing of the kind. On what basis can they now argue otherwise?

This was a question posed to the pro-life community when the 8th Amendment referendum result went against them. But there’s a key difference. The dominant view among pro-lifers is that the State does not get to hand down human rights. The State’s only job is to protect the human rights that already exist by virtue of you simply being human. Abortion, therefore, will always be wrong, regardless of what the State says because it unjustly takes the life of a scientifically-proven-to-be human being. And so, like all social reformers worth their salt, pro-lifers understand what it means to be human, and are able to remain consistent in their philosophical convictions by opposing the State and continuing to fight for the rights of unborn humans.

This view, of course, is rooted in the Judeo-Christian idea that all human beings are created equally and imbued with intrinsic value and purpose. In other words, human rights are an objective feature of reality above man’s ability to change. This, of course, is a scandalous and radical departure from secular atheism.

Secular atheism, on its own terms, cannot account for human worth or dignity because such things simply don’t exist. They are social constructs arbitrated by those in power – like those who ruled against Gareth Lee. So where do secularists turn now? What are their options?

The European Court of Human Rights? Possibly, but there’s every chance that could go the same way. The universe? Ha. The universe hates you. Shit happens. What about the doctrine that underpins the entire atheist enterprise, Darwin’s Origin of Species? Well, if Darwin was right, human beings are just slabs of talking meat. Some will get lucky, some will get devoured. There’s no secular hope to be found there, either.

2k1e6y

No. All they have are the laws given to them by the State of whatever country and time period they happen to be in. And what the State giveth, the State taketh away.

That’s not to say that proponents of secular atheism can’t oppose unjust laws. They can and do. And many of them do a great job of it. But they do so in contradiction to how they believe reality to be. Any secularist of any stripe who thinks otherwise is halfway to theism, so why not save all this public inconsistency and join us theists, completely? You’d still be wrong about the Ashers ruling, but at least you’d know on what grounds.

Naomi Long – but why are you “personally opposed” to abortion on demand?

Last month, the leader of the Alliance Party, Naomi Long, got into a spiky back and forth with Precious Life after she – along with over 169 other MPs – signed a letter calling for their morality to be imposed on unborn children radical changes to Northern Ireland’s abortion laws. Precious Life (correctly) claimed that the letter is basically a euphemism for abortion on demand, and that (also correctly) a vote for Alliance is a vote for abortion. In response, Naomi Long called it ALL LIES before making the claim that decriminalising abortion does not force abortion on anyone. Because we all know that not forcing a certain thing on people makes the thing itself morally permissible. That’s how the logic of morality works in 2018, bigots.

Other local politicians signed the letter too, of course, but the interesting thing about Naomi is that she is a Christian. That and I genuinely like her. She’s a talented, articulate, and hardworking politician, who has displayed considerable bravery in the face of violent paramilitary thugs, and who has, in the past, spoken out against the exodus of persecuted Christians from the Middle East. It’s just a shame that she doesn’t see the violent expulsion of a human being seeking asylum in her mother’s womb in the same way.

You might be wondering, then, how a Christian could love all her neighbours bar the ones that happen to be in a certain location or at a certain stage of development or are the product of certain circumstances. Keep wondering, because Naomi’s specific beliefs on the act of abortion are pretty hard to come by. While she stated in this 2012 article that she’s personally opposed to abortion on demand, she has yet to explain, to my knowledge, why she personally opposes abortion on demand. Is it because she thinks abortion a sin? Does she think abortion takes a human life? Does she think there’s an intrinsic difference between the corpse of a child that was aborted on demand and the corpse of a child that was aborted because she was the product of rape? It’s all rather vague, which should be a concern for any thoughtful pro-life voter because it’s literally a matter of life and death.

So, how best do pro-lifers go about unpacking and engaging with the absurd contradiction of someone who claims to be personally opposed to abortion (either entirely or to a certain degree) yet is in favour of it as a matter of public policy? How do you respond to such a person? What would you say to Naomi Long if she turned up at your door canvassing and the discussion turned to abortion? What would you say to her on Talkback or the Nolan Show when she’s on arguing for choice but doesn’t explain what the precise nature of that choice is? The answer lies in these basic questions, in the following order:

1. “Naomi, why are you personally opposed to abortion on demand?”

The answer to this should be easy. She will likely say that she’s personally opposed to abortion on demand because abortion kills an innocent human being. If Naomi does not think the unborn are human then she would have no logical reason for any personal opposition to abortion at any stage, for any reason. Having an abortion on demand would be no more immoral than picking your nose on demand or having a mole removed on demand. It would require neither personal opposition nor any further thought on the matter.

2. “Naomi, does your belief that abortion on demand kills an innocent human being have any objective basis?”

This is also easy to answer because, if she’s a thinking Christian, two things will happen. First, she will tell you that the scientific consensus amongst embryologists is that the unborn is a distinct, living, and whole human being from the point of conception. Second, she will appeal to her Christian convictions and tell you that all human beings are knit together in their mother’s womb equally in the image of God, and that, as a follower of Christ with a public platform and a gift for feisty activism, she is compelled to speak out against the destruction of the powerless by the powerful, including those at risk of being dismembered with a Sopher clamp by the strong arm of a wealthy abortion doctor.

3. “Naomi, are you personally opposed to child rape?”

This should be brief. She will say “Yes” – then give you the death stare for asking such a stupid question. But it’s not a stupid question. It’s a trap.

4. The next question is obvious: “Would you be willing to impose this belief on others by banning child rape?”

In the blink of an eye, she will answer “yes”. At this point, though, you might want to remind her that preventing people from raping children is a question of objective morality rather than an issue of choice or individual conscience, as the Alliance Party puts it. It is more a case of asking whether a government should prevent terrible things from happening to a voiceless group of vulnerable human beings than the question of choosing between brown sauce or red sauce for your fry.

5. If at this point she doesn’t yet understand how absurd her position is, ask, “Why do you believe that rape is more serious than murder?”

If she still doesn’t get it at this point or refuses to answer, you can simply explain to her that she thinks it should be illegal to rape children but permissible to murder them – even though she “personally opposes” both child rape and child murder. You can now close the discussion by contrasting her muddled and inconsistent position with your clear and inclusive pro-life position that the law should ban both the rape and murder of children because both are forms of child abuse.