USING EQUAL APPLICATION OF ATHEISTS' MORALITY
When an Atheist states that it is morally acceptable to murder another human or throw an intended knockout punch at someone who is completely innocent, unsuspecting and undeserving, I shake my head in wonder that someone could actually be so heartless. Let's be frank and just call it what it is — evil. Even more amazing, this isn't an isolated incident — those who debate with Atheists or read their comments encounter this disturbing lack of morality all the time.

But, the Atheists' rationale is basically that, if one can get away with it, then it's justified. In some cases how one 'gets away with it' is to pass a law, or to get nine Supreme Court justices to agree. Such is the case with abortion. Other times, the Atheist claims that since a particular word definition is unclear, then their action is justified. "What defines a person?" is what the Atheists ask. That is actually the wrong question. The truthful questions would be "What defines a HUMAN" and "what gives one human the right to take another's life?"

Ultimately, the determinations Atheists make come down to the selfish attitude of the Atheist to do whatever he or she pleases and, unless he is likely to be arrested or prosecuted, there is no certain limitation placed on the individual even to the point of murdering another. This presents the greatest danger to society.

It would apply in the same way to other activities including infanticide, child abuse, incest, rape or cannibalism. Since Atheists cannot even agree among themselves what is morally right or wrong, they claim that "morality is subjective" as if that makes an action acceptable.

But, what would happen if we were to apply the same 'rule' the Atheists use against Atheists as a group rather than say, humans in the womb? How might that look?

Let's try an example to test this premise:

ATHEISTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REPRODUCE
All it would take would be to pass legislation to take away the legal ability for Atheists to reproduce. Available technologies could be used to neuter individuals. The argument could be that, by eliminating the chance of Atheists having offspring, society would be at less risk from the harmful effects of a population who claim, quite literally, to be soulless and without spirits.

Supporting evidence shouldn't be hard to find to prop up such an argument and since there are many more citizens who are theists than there are Atheists, by applying the Atheists' "rule" of "majority rule" or "might makes right" (based on Darwinism's concepts) it shouldn't be hard to get a majority vote.

What do you say, Atheists? Should we encourage Congress to create such legislation? Why, or why not?