manicstreetpreacher is simply appalled.
I have not read Peter Hitchens’ addition to the host of “flea” responses to the New Atheism, The Rage Against God, but I heard him on the Saturday, 15 May 2010 edition of Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? discussing the book with atheist scientific broadcaster and writer, Adam Rutherford.
Without giving a blow-by-blow account, what started off as a reasonable and balanced discussion on the pros and cons Christian versus secular morality swiftly descended into a demagogic point-scoring exercise by Hitchens on the questions of abortion and sex education. I was most offended by Hitchens’ cheap emotional ploy of stating that abortion was murder and abortion clinics were comparable to the Nazi death camps.
Perhaps Hitchens should take a look at this picture…
Abortion is a difficult issue and I struggle with it greatly. Evan Harris did very well to convey the moral minefield of the topic and is a superb spokesman for humanists and secularists everywhere. Abortion is hardly a wonderful thing that we need to be encouraging more of, but it is alas the least worst option. Rather like democracy as a form of government, as Winston Churchill once said.
Paul Hill, a Christian minister who murdered an abortion clinic doctor in the USA, was far more evil than the doctor he killed could ever reasonably be considered. Hill’s victim terminated foetuses at the request of their mothers. Foetuses that could not feel pain like we can, who had no memories, no emotions, no wife, no children, no friends, no relatives to mourn them. I admit that it is an awful choice to make, but I do so without hesitation.
…to realise how crudely simplistic his reasoning really is. Such moral absolutist hysteria advances the quest for truth not one iota.
I am pro-choice because I believe that fertilised embryos do not feel pain, experience emotions or accrue memories like a living human being after birth until an advanced stage of gestation, if at all. I’m not holding anything against foetuses as the Nazis regarded Jews as sub-human as Peter Hitchens argues, but THEY ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS!
However, I would change my stance if convincing evidence were produced that contradicted my impression of the sensory and emotional content of foetuses. I wonder what evidence or argument would change Peter Hitchens’ stance on abortion and convince him that it was ethical? I suspect none whatsoever; he has ruled it out a priori on religious grounds and no evidence or reasoning would change his mind. I suppose that’s why they call it blind faith.
Debates are always subjective affairs and very often both sides claim victory. But it was no small wonder that Peter Hitchens attempted to dissuade listeners from watching his debate against older, wiser and funnier brother, Christopher Hitchens, at The Hauenstein Center in April 2008 on the Iraq War and religion, because quite simply he was pulverised by his heretical elder sibling. It was an embarrassment, frankly. I don’t even support the Iraq War and I thought Hitch Snr made a better argument. And as for Petee’s arguments in favour of God? Let’s just say I won’t be spending my hard earned cash on his new book if this performance is anything to go by.
To conclude this post, I present the video of the full event. Sit back and enjoy the slaughter.
Tags: Abortion, Acorn, Adam Rutherford, Chicken Egg, Christian, christianity, christopher hitchens, debate, Evan Harris MP, Foetus, God Is Not Great How Religion Poisons Everything, Grand Valley State University, justin brierley, letter to a christian nation, Liberal Democrat, Mail On Sunday, New Atheism, Paul Hill, Peter Hitchens, Religion, Salk Institute, Sam Harris Stem Cell Research, Sex Education, Silk Worm, the end of faith, The Hauenstein Center, The Rage Against God Why Faith is the Foundation of Civilisation, The Science Network, This Is Not A Chicken, This Is Not A Difficult Concept, This Is Not A Dress, This Is Not A Person, This Is Not A Tree, Unbelievable? Premier Christian Radio