An Interesting Exchange in Which I Demolish a Pro-Deather’s Arguments

This pro-deather is semi-bright, semi-literate, but totally lacking in self-awareness, and deeply insecure in his beliefs. So he becomes quickly defensive and loses his already tenuous grasp on rationality. In short, he’s a typical leftist-atheist-pro-deather.

In the exchange below, he quickly went through the classic leftist debating sequence: Derision ==> Evasion ==> Capitulation, while claiming victory. You know, at the end? “You’re not worth my time, so I’m going to ignore you (or ban you).

His name is John Zande and he lives (so he says) in Brazil, while blogging here.

Our exchange is here, and it centers on the topic of abortion, but more specifically on my simple observation:

I’ve never heard a pro-deather (I’m pro-life) even attempt to answer the one question that they (the pro-deathers) must answer, because of the nature of the act they support: What if you’re wrong?

I posed that question in response to the basic premise of Zande’s original post: “Abortion: There is No Ethical Dilemma” (This brings to mind another question I often pose: Why is it that whenever the Left takes a position on something, someone ends up dead?)

I’ve posed that What if you’re wrong? question dozens of times to pro-deathers, and not one has ever been able to return more than “Oh, I know I’m not wrong” to me. Correction: One pro-deather has answered the question honestly and forthrightly. I told the story of that interesting exchange in the conversation below. I’ve added my own commentary, in red font as well.

I went in hot and direct. Here’s my opening:

In your opinion.

What if you’re wrong?

It’s funny, I’ve never met anyone on the pro-death side who could answer that question. They always bluster on, calling “indisputable fact” things that are obvious opinions, then they take their ball and, shouting imprecations the whole way, go home to Mommy.


— x


Here’s Zande’s evasive, reply:

There is no “opinion” in the physical development of foetal neural hardware. The physical structures are either there, or they’re not. But feel free to dissect the brains of thousands of premature babies (dead, naturally) and compare your physical findings with similar studies across the planet… then get back to me if you find some error in the literature.

The only way you can open this subject up to meaningful debate is if you can demonstrate some other—previously unknown—element constituting a human organism; a soul, for example. If you can demonstrate that, then everything would have to be reassessed. Until then, the brain is the beginning and the end of the subject.

“There is no ‘opinion'” is… an opinion. Of course. At this point Zande tries to make an assertion that he hopes will slam dunk his argument into the winner’s circle, or at least into the “He can’t counter that one!” place. He says, “Until then, the brain is the beginning and the end of the subject.” This is, of course, only his opinion.

I’ve gone back and forth with Zande on the notion of a soul. His contention is that I can’t demonstrate that there is a soul, therefore he’s within his rights to ignore it. However, my point is simple: Zande can’t prove there is no soul, therefore his assertion that abortion presents no moral dilemma is… unprovable. But the act of abortion is irrevocable.

That conclusion is unassailable, and that makes of abortion, of course, the very definition of a moral dilemma. Zande’s very thesis is debunked. And pretty easily. As we’ll see, Zande is able to present only filibustering in the face of my re-posing the original question: What if you’re wrong? Important Note: It is absolutely incumbent on the pro-deathers to answer that question, since the act they support cannot be taken back.

Zande then said:

I’m going to answer you at the bottom of the page, in a new thread.

Zande’s like most leftists: he fears disagreement, because he knows that his position and arguments are feeble. So he maintains an amen chorus of head-nodding sycophants who are as intellectually lazy as he is. My original reply to his post, at top, appeared in the middle of a bunch of replies. Zande didn’t want what he knew would be an unsuccessful defense of his position to clutter up the otherwise nearly unanimous chorus of praise he had already received for his, let’s face it, fatuous position. Moving our disagreement to the bottom of the page allows him  to separate my dissent from his crowd of generally none-too-bright toadies.

My reply:


June 8, 2019 at 12:28 am Edit

Lol! Seriously? You put forward this pap by way of reply? Referring to the post before the one about going to the bottom of the thread.

Again, what if you’re wrong?

Do you have a way to bring back the 10’s upon 10’s of millions of perfectly innocent victims if you’re wrong?

You have all manner of finite, relative things on your side — human understanding, human wisdom, human knowledge — I have one single absolute on my side: If you’re wrong, then what you support is an atrocity, an obscenity, an outrage, a crime against all that is decent.

Please don’t resort to “science this” and “science that” and “everyone knows this,” and “everyone knows that,” and “everyone says,” and all that crap.

That all gave us a flat earth, leeches, and environmentalism, and a lot more sludge and crap.

One time, Zande, try not to be the shallow, superficial half-wit you constantly show yourself to be.


— x

I pulled no punches, and provided the only answer to the obligatory question that the pro-death side dodges every time: If you’re wrong, then what you support is an atrocity, an obscenity, an outrage, a crime against all that is decent.

To which Zande retorted:

You seem to be missing a rather large and rather fundamental point here, so let me write the following words very, very slowly: Lol! I have to admit, this is the kind of snark that I enjoy. Don’t just call someone stupid, do it with some flair!

Your question is thoroughly, completely, wholly, utterly meaningless if you can’t first demonstrate that my understanding of the subject is missing some critical (and verifiable <– Key word. Zande’s trying to restrict the discussion to parameters that he finds acceptable. Classic tactic of the one who’s insecure in his beliefs) piece of information. This is, of course, an opinion. And I did demonstrate something he’s missing: the answer to the question. A question that he is absolutely morally bound to answer, because of the nature of the act he supports.

If you have something, present it. I did. He ignored it, then pretended that I hadn’t presented anything. The question is sufficient by itself. Here’s another indisputable fact:; If there were no moral dilemma to abortion, then Zande, and all pro-deathers, would be able to answer the question easily. As already stated, I’m not afraid to adjust my thinking should new information come to light. Demonstrate that there is some other—previously unknown—element constituting the human organism.

I look forward to your answer. Again, Zande got his answer long ago, but showed himself either too insecure, too lazy, too closed-minded, or insufficiently intellectually armed to answer the question.

Still, I replied again:

Dude: you think that to put in the phrase “(and verifiable)” you’ve blocked me into a corner. Sorry. You’re trying to define the discussion in your own limited, pinched, crabbed terms, and I won’t be a part of that. So, I consider that phrase null and void.

Why? Simple: Here’s a short list of other things that are unverified, unverifiable, and… accepted as fact today:
• electrons
• protons
• atoms
• quarks
• neutrinos
• all sub-atomic particles,
• quasars
• black holes
• quantum theory
• speed of light velocity limitation
• the Big Bang, evolution
• Global Warming
• dark matter
• dark energy
• Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
• Relativity
• space curvature
• countless mathematical hypotheses that appear to be correct for countless numbers
• a whole lot more.

• Oh, and your definitions of life and death.

Some of those — Global Warming and Evolution (some aspects) have been persuasively debunked (Evolution, by Darwin himself)

At least you had the (probably unknowing) decency to admit that these were generally accepted views. Ie: Subjective, unverifiable. (Hence the reason you don’t get to deny me the “unverifiable.”)

Biology 101 starts with an admission by the biologist, that not one single scientist on the face of the earth knows what life is. They can describe it, but they can’t tell you what it is. Yet, you presume to tell everyone else that you know. Dude: You’re a barely literate, ignorant half-wit. Know your place. Know your lane. Sometimes I can be a pompous blowhard, I know it, I admit it, and sometimes I embrace it.

Look, I know where this is headed: I point out scientific facts (generally accepted, not “settled”) about things like evolution, environmentalism, global warming, and the like, that you’re not willing to accept, then you accuse me of being an ignorant, retrograde troglodyte, that I’m not worth your time, and you take your ball and go home to mommy. At least I’m willing to admit that we’re going to do little more than talk past each other if I accept your idiotic suggestion that I acquiesce to your definition of what’s “unverifiable.”

Oh, I’ll be happy to play the “(and verifiable)” game with you on one condition: We use my definition of “verifiable.”

You shouldn’t have a problem with that. After all, “verifiable” is “verifiable,” right?

So, I’ll be happy to play your game… but only after you play mine. After all, I proposed it first.

So, again, what if you’re wrong? And, I guess that implies a corollary: If you’re wrong, do you have a plan to restore to life the tens of millions of innocents that you’ve slaughtered? I got more blunt here as well, with another indirect answer to my question.


— x

Zande’s response?

Wow. 408 words just to say you have nothing.

Fair enough.

This is where Zande starts filbustering. His chosen form of closing-his-eyes-and-covering-his-ears in this thread is to count words and marvel at how many one uses to “say nothing.” In this way, of course, he avoids — again — answering the question. 

With Zande in full terrified fleeing mode, I retorted with:


Looks more like you’ve got nothing. Remember, it’s your turn. Here, I point out the fact that the ball is still in Zande’s court. I placed it there all the way back in my original post, by posing the question that Zande is unable to answer.

So: What if you’re wrong? Annnnd… let’s re-pose the question. Again! Don’t want to forget it… it’s kind of the point.

Not surprised that you weren’t able to answer. No pro-deather has ever been able to answer that simplest of questions. A quick taunt or two…

Besides, you’re just a dumb leftist… they’re like lemmings. No one really expects them to have anything intelligent to say. Or three, or four…

In failing, yet again, to answer that simplest of questions, you admit publicly that you’re okay with slaughtering lives that you can’t prove aren’t fully human beings, based only on what you know are opinions and scientific guesses. This is an important understanding: The entire pro-death movement is based on, and just fine with, the notion that they are killing entities they cannot prove are not human… based solely on guesses.


— x

Zande’s riposte:

Yes, I get it: you want to play make-believe.

Sorry, but I prefer non-fiction when it comes to issues concerning people’s fundamental rights. You can see that preference in the article above. It has lots of things called “facts.” Facts are things rational people address when discussing important issues, when shaping laws, and when establishing/explaining ethical precepts.

The ball was kind of teed up for me. “Facts” are not friendly to the Left or the pro-death ghouls, so they fabricate fictions and opinions and call them facts. Here’s my response:

Yes. Facts like: The earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, and the universe is 4 billion years old, then 10, then 15, then… And coffee’s bad for you! No, it’s good! No, it’s bad! And, of course, “Global Warming!” Oops. All “facts” that were once unshakable, and are now all debunked. Along with many, many more, all on a massive heap of sad, bedraggled things that were once “facts” and are now… rejected.

Haven’t you ever seen those headlines: “Discovery Threatens Everything Scientists Believe About [fill in scientific “fact” here]”? I’ve seen a thousand such headlines.

Einstein conceived of Relativity Theory because he refused to see some “facts” as unshakable. Scientific “facts” are proven wrong every hour of every day. Heisenberg essentially said that there are no such things as facts. Or at least that they’re unknowable, hence non-existent. Schrodinger posited that a cat can be both dead, in fact and alive, in fact at the same time! And he dared anyone to prove him wrong.

You decided that your boundaries for when a human life is a human life are “facts.” Well, that’s your opinion. Nothing more. Sorry. I’ll laugh very, very hard if you retort with, “Well, everyone else says so too!”

You try to sound erudite and learned, when you plainly know nothing about how science actually works. Or about what science actually is.

Dude, you’re nothing more than an armchair philosopher dabbling in realms that are beyond your ken.

Sorry, dude, there’s nothing less stable, less permanent, or more changeable than your so-called “facts.” Your facts are… fiction.

And you still haven’t answered my question. However in the spirit of your response to my post, I’ll give you one possible answer that, I’m sure, you’ll agree with: If a fertilized human egg is indeed a human life, then no one has a “fundamental right” to kill it. Even pro-death ghouls like you admit that abortion is the killing of something that’s alive.

Now, let’s play your silly little game a little bit more: Take belief in God completely out of it, and the question becomes even more urgent: What if you’re wrong? Even from your retarded (<– I chose that adjective carefully. No Lefty likes to have their intelligence questioned. It’s their primary conceit.) perspective, you can see that if you’re wrong, then a horrible atrocity has been committed against the most innocent of the innocent.

No one has a “fundamental right” to commit an atrocity.

I’d challenge you with another thing. Something of which I’m sure you’ve heard. There are many in Europe and in America who believe that a woman should have the right to “abort” the baby even well after birth. Based on your logic, this is obviously a correct belief.

Since you hang your hat on “brain activity,” then it remains for the pro-death ghouls to re-define “brain activity” to mean whatever they need it to mean, in order to eliminate those they deem undesirable, or sub-human, or whatever.

I mean, what if someone has brain activity going on, and plenty of it, but it’s the wrong kind of brain activity? Why not “abort” him? I mean, after all, it’s a fundamental right! Right?

Oh yeah, I just described the leftist modus operandi for the past nearly two centuries.

So, after that brief digression, now that we know that your “facts” are merely opinions, how do you justify killing a life that you have no ability to restore based merely on what are obviously shaky opinions? How are you any better than the Nazis who, based solely on their own obviously shaky opinions, killed people they knew they had no ability to bring back?


— x

So, I kind of unloaded on Zande. This is where I started: “You decided that your boundaries for when a human life is a human life are ‘facts.’ Well, that’s your opinion. Nothing more. Sorry. I’ll laugh very, very hard if you retort with, ‘Well, everyone else says so too!'” I kind of pointed out the obvious. Let’s see how Zande reacts.

Zande’s reaction:

598 words this time just say you don’t have anything.


More filibustering. However — and it’s an important “however” — his filibustering was an open door for me to pile it on him some more. Remember, at this point, he’s scared, he has no rejoinder to some basic truths, and he’s running down the street clutching his ball and wailing, “Mommy!” What better time to lay it on him some more?!? 🙂

My next response:

And yet, you still can’t answer the question.

The record remains unbroken. I haven’t yet met a pro-deather who could answer the question. In this post, I point out the only pro-deather who has ever provided an answer to the question. By the way, there is an answer to the question. We learn what it is in this post right here!

Just like you, they did everything they could, including the cheapest of tricks like yours, to avoid answering it.

I once attended a rally at which there were a bunch of pro-deathers marching in a counter rally. In what had to be the ultimate of ironies, many of the ghouls brought young children. And… here comes the answer to the question.

In my capacity as an observer, I asked one young mother the same question I just asked you. Her response was simple: “We’re not.”

She and I went back and forth a bit… all very civilly, when her young daughter came up to me and whacked me with her little placard, and yelled at me, “You leave my mommy alone!”

Since her mommy and I were having a polite discussion, I’m not sure what problem the moppet had with me, but I did have the presence of mind to ask the same question to the little girl: “But, what if she’s wrong?”

The little girl’s reply was illuminating. She demonstrated that she knew both what abortion is, and had a bit of a grasp of the “issue” itself; ie #1, that some support abortion, and #2, some oppose it, and #3, mommy supports it and #4, mommy believes that those who oppose it are bad. (hence the reason she whacked me with her sign.) Her response showed also that she knew what abortion really is. She said simply, “That would be really bad.” Nothing more, nothing less. And that my friends, is the answer to the question. That would be really bad. It’s a simple question with a simple answer, and the pro-deathers have avoided it completely. They have to. Because if they’re wrong, then that would be really bad. Really, really bad.

That, needless to say, was the end of the civil part of my discussion with the pro-death woman. She pulled her daughter away and walked briskly away, pulling her daughter with her.

I have a feeling that the daughter received an extra special dose of pro-death indoctrination that night!

Oh, don’t get me wrong, JZ… I’ve posed that question to pro-lifers too… dozens of times. Many more times than I’ve been able to pose it to pro-deathers. And, let’s be honest, I’ve heard my fair share of “We’re not wrong” from pro-lifers too.

However, I’ve also heard a passel of other responses, and they’ve generally made sense. Things like: “Well, if so, no harm no foul. At least we didn’t kill anyone. The baby can be given up for adoption.” (That’s (or a variation of it)  the most common reply)

Again, in fairness, that’s not true all over the world. (That a baby can be given up for adoption easily, that is. That I didn’t make that crystal clear is a weakness of this post.) (That, however, is an argument for the spread of liberal democratic capitalism, not for abortion. A discussion for another day, perhaps?) A brief digression into economics…

However, in America, there’s no rational excuse whatsoever for abortion today. Especially since the entire pro-death crowd can’t answer the same simple question that a six-year old answers easily. Ouch! This post lands a lot of haymakers on Zande’s poor head.

From pro-lifers, in response to my question, I’ve also heard references to Pascal, Aquinas, Aristotle, Buckley, Mom and Dad, themselves, and more.

Nat Hentoff himself, the great leftist atheist, opposed abortion! (I liked him a lot, though I disagreed with him vehemently in so many ways. See if you can use that clue to answer my question.)

Zande, why don’t you make an honest effort? Try to answer my question. You’ve tried to posit your definition of when a person is a person, and if you read what you wrote from a rhetorician’s perspective, you tried manfully to box out any dissenting points-of-view by defining on what terms you would brook dissent: ie: your terms.

But people don’t live their lives, or think their thoughts, or believe their beliefs by your terms, or with your point-of-view, or with your beliefs. People come at life from all different angles and perspectives. I’ve long said at my own publication, that if something is right, if something “works,” then it works on all levels: the Philosophical, the theological, the practical, the physical, the secular, the intellectual, the emotional. All levels”

The trick, of course, is to see how.

Therefore, if your belief about slaughtering babies “works,” If it’s “right,”‘ then it works, and it’s right, on all those levels, and you don’t need to tell believers like me to keep our beliefs out of it at all! (in fairness, if you could do that, then I could tell you to leave your beliefs out of it too, and that would be a legitimate demand and there would be no possibility of debate.) However, you have to prove that your belief is right, because if my belief prevails, then nothing (<– using your vernacular) and no one is dead. However, if your belief prevails than something or someone is dead forever, and the act is absolute and irrevocable. At least by you and me. So… the burden of proof — really, really, very, amazingly, astonishingly, massively logical, irrefutable (on any level) rests on your shoulders.

Because you can’t being a single one of them back.

I dare you to prove me wrong. A logical, well-made, persuasive argument will do. No sources, please — I won’t play that silly game with you. Your argument in the original post failed. Why? It didn’t address the question: “What if you’re wrong?

Anyway, since your argument appears not to work (on any level except one) except, that is, for those who just don’t want to have to deal with the responsibility of supporting a pregnancy and a baby (plainly a “first world” problem!), then, you have to spend all your time trying to shoehorn the debate into the pinched, narrow intellectual, moral and rhetorical confines of… someone who simply doesn’t want to deal with the responsibility of supporting a pregnancy and a baby. Which you tried, and failed, manfully to do, above.

Can you do better? ‘Cause your first thing failed. Badly.


— x

This is the post that wins the argument with Zande. Unless, that is, he can come back with something more persuasive than that. Let’s see…

Zande’s comeback:

And now 932 words just to say you have absolutely nothing.

You haven’t really thought this whole thing through, have you?

White flag.

I’ve come at this topic in this thread alone from many different angles, with arguments from left and right, with logic and thoughtful questions and references, and Zande comes back with: “You haven’t thought this through, have you?” 

At this point, rhetorically at least, Zande is Hirohito looking over Hiroshima after the bomb and saying, “I think we can still do this.”

Really, though, a more thorough capitulation would be difficult to depict. Again, a crucial, unassailable point: If abortion truly represents no moral dilemma whatsoever, then Zande, and the rest of the pro-death crowd, would be able to answer my simple question quite easily.

I kind of went into taunting mode:

Still can’t answer the question?

Let’s try something else;

I can answer that question about any of my most cherished beliefs. Why can’t you?

Anyone can stonewall by counting words and saying the same thing over and over and over again… in fact, the Left is particularly adept at it, since they have no real arguments. It’s a cute dodge, but a dodge all the same.

So, how about if you try to break the string and answer the question? I won’t even bind you to your limitations at all.

Only one thing: If you appeal to the unprovable, or as you say to the unverifiable, then I get to do so as well. I’ve already shown Zande that his “facts” are only “facts” in his opinion. That makes them… opinions. In this paragraph, I took a sledgehammer to the box into which Zande’s “and verifiable” phrase was meant to place me

Here’s a simple truth: your “line” as to when there’s a human and when there’s not is completely arbitrary, and you know it.

Worse, your “line” is dependent on freakin’ scientists! Heck, they’ve never been wrong before, now have they!?! Lololololololol! 🙂 🙂 🙂 This particular snippet demolishes Zande’s arguments too. Scientists — Zande’s real deities — are wrong all the time. Wrong, corrupt, fraudulent, dishonest, prone to all the same weaknesses as all other humans, because they’re well… only human.

But, you still think it’s okay to do the absolute, the irrevocable, the absolutely unthinkable… to take a human life that — no one disagrees — is perfectly innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The temptation is to say, “What a feakin’ idiot!” but I’ll resist that temptation. But, did I really? 🙂

Still, you have nothing to justify your absolute act, but a bunch of, let’s face it… guesses.

Go ahead count the words. Or… answer the question.

What if you’re wrong.

Oh, and way more than me are watching. Odds are among those watching this with amusement with me are 94-6 in favor of the resolution: “He’s got no answer.”

Gonna prove ’em wrong?


— x

Expect Zande to pick up his ball now and go home. He’s cooked.

Zande’s reply:

Still got nothing, huh?

Okay, this is well passed (sic) being boring.

As I’ve already said: I’m not into playing make-believe with this subject. You might be, but I’m not. Your question is thoroughly meaningless if you can’t first demonstrate that my understanding of the subject is missing some critical and verifiable piece of information. Just one: the answer to the question: What if you’re wrong?

You’ve offered nothing. Zero. Naught. A complete and consummate blank.

So, either demonstrate that I am missing something and need to revise my position, or expect to be ignored. Fair warning?

Waaaaaaahhhh!!! Mommy!!! … 🙂 This is classic leftist-pro-deather.

I closed with a taunt or two:

Lol! So much effort to dodge a simple question!

It’s, of course, the question that every philosopher knows has to be answered satisfactorily to all beliefs.

And, of course, the one who has nothing is always the one who pretends to yawn, proclaims it all so boring and just beneath him, and goes home… beaten, but never having been man enough to admit it.

The classic behavior of the Left. All too predictable.


— x


Hmmmmmm… The basic premise was: “Abortion: There is No Ethical Dilemma.

Four hundred fifty plus replies, many of which in opposition, many of which question, many of which agree.

Therefore, by definition, the basic premise is: debunked.

That, at least, should be uncontroversial.


— x

I didn’t add that I’d thoroughly walloped Zande in our argument, because I don’t think I had to.

Interestingly, I rarely made reference to one of my most cherished beliefs in this debate: my belief in God. After all, as I did mention: if a belief works, then it works on all levels: the intellectual, the religious, the philosophical, the secular, the practical, etc.

The bottom line is simple: If you can’t answer the question — What if you’re wrong? — clearly, convincingly, simply and easily, then you have no business holding the position you hold.



— xPraetorius







2 thoughts on “An Interesting Exchange in Which I Demolish a Pro-Deather’s Arguments

  1. Ah, our old friend John Zande.
    Here we go again.
    Using scientific language, scientific sounnding mumbo jambo and pseudophilosophical phrases he drops the equivalent of a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield of stupid ideas.
    His whole argument hinges on the premise that a baby who has not yet developed certain brain functions is essentially the same as a braindead person and therefore the baby is not killed when the baby is aborted.
    When one reads this stuff for the first time one knows immediately that something is horribly wrong with this argument but one cannot put quite the finger on it. The reason for this is that the error is so massive and that one has to be galactically stupid in order to make such an error that one has a hard time to see the error right in front of one|s nose.
    John Zande fails to see the fundamental difference between life and death. He fails to seeTHE defining characteristic of death. Death is irreversible. Put simply, dead organisms stay dead.
    A baby on the other hand, if left alone, develops into a full human being. It does not matter when the baby is aborted. The only way to prevent an embryo from becoming a fully developed human being after conception is, to KILL it.

Please 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