The Maths Of Pro-Life

I was thrilled to receive a comment by some tool calling himself “Atheist Stooges”. Apparently, a lack of personality is incentive enough to make one of your own based on demonising someone else.

I’ll break it down bit by bit until my intellect goes out of the window.

Atheists lack a basic human trait, and that is the civilized and moral ability to fight for the lives of innocent unborn human embryos and fetuses who will be aborted.

I cannot really depict how much I’m stammering. I mean, how do you counter this? Presumably, surviving, hunter-gathering, the propagation of the species and so on are not (?) basic human traits? If it’s a basic human trait, then why the attacks on pregnant women and children throughout history? What about the Stone Age, when abortion was retarded because it killed the notion of survival? Then this ‘basic human trait’ evolved? In the span of, what, 5000 years? I’m being generous here.


Not a single one [atheist] is an advocate for saving their lives. I always presumed something had to possess a life in order to save its, well, life.

They do not have the ability to stand up for the protection of the lives of the most innocent and weak human beings!
Which one of has the ability to love the most noble and perfect Law in the universe made for mankind – the TEN COMMANDMENTS?
Again, I presume a human being to be –

Oh fuck it. The rest is a long, long diatribe about how atheists are murderous bastards for being pro-choice (a grand, grand leap of faith in that assumption) and how atheists will be punished by God when they die or something or something.

Oo, found another brilliant quote:
Their atheism is therefore utterly worthless because it causes them to deny the existence of the Almighty God.
They therefore worship and serve Satan and do his will while even denying his existence as well.

The mind boggling lunacy is there for the reader to plough through. I really do invite you to read the rest of the comment, it really is quite a funny exercise.

Come to think of it, how’s this. In the whole comment, Atheist Stooges calls atheists the following:

  • Their atheism is useless and murderous!
  • Their atheism is useless and immoral
  • Their atheism is therefore utterly worthless
  • Their atheism is worthless
  • Their atheism is worthless
  • Their atheism is worthless
  • Their atheism is worthless!
  • Out of every foolish criminal and anti american atheist…
  • The heathen atheists
  • Which foolish atheist

He is nothing short of a criminal. That this kind of behaviour goes unpunished is unthinkable for a society based on accepting multiple ideas and creeds and races.

That could be for another post. I really enjoyed this part though. He dabbles in Math, as you’ll see:

They call Hitler the greatest monster in history, who is said to have murdered a total of about 38 million people,
but you refuse to count the total number of human innocent embryos and fetuses they are murdering and in favor of murdering. Hitler has ceased killing,but their number far exceeds Hitler’s and continues to increase.
Furthermore, not one of the unborn babies they murder and in favor of murdering are criminals – all are innocent.

Unborn babies! So many of them! He casts a wide net, which gives me the liberty to elaborate under his authority and moral argument. Atheist Stooges, this is what you’re saying:

The average number of sperm in a single load: 250 million

Every time someone jacks off, 250 million ‘unborn’ babies are ‘murdered’. The seas and sewage treatment plants are ripe with the ‘blood’ of these ‘unborn’ babies.

It gets worse.

The average number of times a male aged 13 – 70 blows his load per week can be fixed at around 2. That brings the number of times the average world male blows his load in his lifetime to: 42,340. Multiply 250 million by 42,340 and that’s 1.0585 x 1013 ‘unborn’ babies per male, per lifetime. That’s 1 with 13 zeros behind it. For one man. In 60 years.

In 2007, there are approximately 3,327,000,000 males in the whole world. You do the Math, Atheist Stooges.

Quite frankly, I’m glad only a tiny, tiny fraction of those are born or we’d have a serious overpopulation.

And that Math up there, Atheist Stooges, is called reductio ad absurdum. Now go and chase a tree and let me deal with God once I meet his non-existent self.


11 Responses

  1. Some people are just…ignorant…even of their own religion.

  2. He simply called embryos – which you, oh Mr. Scientist should know is the fertilized egg, not just the sperm on its own – the murdered ones, and also the fetuses that have already “staked their claim” on the womb. Don’t be so pompous, more intelligence is required by you for that.

  3. I appreciate your thinly veiled personal attack on me, fancythis. It gives me a sensation of false importance.

    The man you’re defending, who goes by the handle ‘Atheist Stooges’ I remind you, casts a wide, wide net on what a human being is. An embryo which has ‘staked its claim’ on the womb (I’m assuming, as you are, that embryos are genetically predisposed to warfare and strategy) is, in initial stages, a ball of cells.

    A case for regulating abortion can be made once the nervous system of the embryo has fully developed – in fact, I will more often than not cringe at a late stage abortion. The nervous system develops only in later stages of gestation, and once it has then it could be argued that the embryo ‘suffers’ with an abortion.

    At any moment beforehand though, you’re talking about the ‘potential’ for life. And this net is a wide one – it could refer just as much as to spilled seed, menstruation, moments unused for sexual reproduction or early stage abortion.

  4. not really, because those things on their own cannot produce life. It is the combination of the two that is life, which is what he is defending. I’ve never heard anyone argue the matter of the nervous system. It doesn’t matter whether or not the abortion can be “felt” by the baby. It’s an issue of right or wrong. It’s that basic.

  5. Dear Spiritually Retarded,
    Anytime I can get a God-Hater such as yourself to attack me I consider that a victory as well as a compliment.
    Now you may repost my material w/o permission as you’ve done here but don’t forget to handle my words with reverence and power.
    And wash your hands beforehand.

  6. The combination of two people having sex is necessary for reproduction. Not having sex, therefore is inextricably linked to ‘wrong’.

    Who decides ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, incidentally? Please say it’s the Bible, that way I can pull out Leviticus and ask you why executing adulterers is ‘wrong’ rather than, as the Bible argues, ‘right’.

    Atheist stooges, even though I am thoroughly unimpressed at the way you graft my witticism onto yourself, your words are pure comedy gold. Take this personally: I make it a point to personally attack bigots and intolerant fascists, not just attack their points. Consider yourself complimented, Dear Rationally Retarded.

  7. Yes, I define right and wrong through the scriptures. It’s nice to see that you base your biblical knowledge off of one book though. How original.

  8. You clearly do something similar. If you really based right and wrong on the scriptures, you’d probably violate most of the existing penal code in enlightened Western societies. Therefore you nitpick parts which you deem to be correct, and the violent stuff (hence Leviticus) goes into the realm of ‘interpretation’ and ‘metaphor’. It’s natural! Of course, I’m assuming you don’t kill people for picking up sticks on sabbath and you acknowledge the equality of the sexes.

    Don’t get me wrong, the Bible, despite its thick language, is a riveting read and an inextricable part of Judeo-Christian literature. But it’s outphaes as far as morals go, and leads one to wonder: how do you know what’s right or wrong to nitpick from the Bible?

  9. Thanks for the interpretation. I appreciate the originality in your argument against the Bible. Really I’m at a loss. Oh wait, no I’m not!
    If you read beyond Leviticus you see that those laws God had in place were the strict pre-saviour laws. Laws that required fullfilling and following because Christ had not yet come to die for our sins and so sin had a stricter penalty. Now that Christ has come, died for us and risen (this is crucial, you know) faith and repentance is all that is required for entrance into heaven.
    By the way. EVERYthing in the Bible must be looked at in it’s context. If you read one verse and not the verses surrounding you’re setting yourself up for misinterpretation.

  10. If you want to know how to take down the idiot at, check out the blog I established:

    The ball is already rolling but some extra muscle will help ensure that the little bastard is taught a lesson.

  11. Oops. Try this link:

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: