EvilBible.com is Dead

Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared
fallacious on very many levels.
Two examples of this fact are as follows:

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com,
for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text
related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who
knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of
emotive expression of prejudice-it would have discredited evilbible.com to
reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have
an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice
evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does
not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd
reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human
sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were
not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When “Jews” were
performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God
of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods.
Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not
condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.

Further evidence of this is found at this URL:

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/evilbiblecom-is-dead.html

You state that “Two properties are essential for a being to possess rights: physical independence and the capacity for rational thought.” I suppose you take these as axiomatic. Many would disagree with this premise, as it can lead to notions that many intuitively find revolting, such as infanticide (an infant cannot be said to experience “rational thought”).

A great deal of the world views “human rights” as rights that are owed to each and every member of the human species, regardless of mental state, or state of dependence. There is much disagreement over what exactly those rights entail, but there is substantial agreement of what feature earns an organism “human rights”: humanity. Obviously you reject this theory of human rights as based on the dignity of the human being.

All you have shown, therefore, is that if one is willing to redefine the concept of rights, or redefine “human being”, then you can deny rights at your pleasure.

It is possible for birth control methods to fail and this includes married couples who can not afford or do not want another child.

Nobody has the right to impose their own beliefs on others.

It is rather callous and crude to call it a parasite too.

It’s a factual biological description, and carries no emotional connotation other than the ones you chose to add to it.

Also, what about the father’s rights or prospective father, since the fetus has 1/2 his DNA? Doesn’t he have a say in the matter?

No. Morally, the origin of the DNA is irrelevant. Whether the mother or father have 0 or 100% of the DNA makes absolutely no difference. What matter is that the fetus is part of the mother’s body.

If you are not capable of defending your views, you should question whether they are correct.

The “fetus” is a developing human and did not choose to be in the mother’s womb. It is rather callous and crude to call it a parasite too.

I can understand an argument on when does life “begin” or an argument on whether an embryo has “rights”, but this goes to far.

So a woman who just gives birth with the cord attached to the “parasite” would be ok in just murdering the fetus parasite before the cord, which is the lifeline of such parasite is cut?

Also, what about the father’s rights or prospective father, since the fetus has 1/2 his DNA? Doesn’t he have a say in the matter?

Merriam-Webster Online. 17 December 2008

For example: “The One Minute Case For Abortion Rights”

And it is the right of religion only to exclude those who get abortions from their ranks, not to influence a NON RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT. It doesn’t matter in the slightest what “God” thinks, because that’s not the law’s purpose.