nikolai_42
Well-known member
I have never forayed into the abortion debate so why I am now (if this can even be said to getting in the debate), I can't say. It may have something to do with the persistent defense of a group that exists almost solely for the purpose of performing abortions - even in light of all the atrocities that the same group perpetuates.
In thinking about the issue, some radical departures from common sense seem to circle around the debate today. Not the least of which (in my mind) are the following :
1. If you are for abortion, you are called "Pro-choice". This is almost euphemistic since it attempts to avoid the ugly truth and paint it with a seemingly positive brush. But if you stop to think about it for even a small amount of time, since when does that make anything better? In an age that is all about not infringing on "my" rights, what insanity omits this situation from that thinking? In other words, where does "choice" make it okay to commit murder (more on that contentious word in a moment)? In the founding documents of the nation?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these arePersonal Choice, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
Strike one (no pun intended). In fact, it is striking that the document goes on immediately to say that it is the government that is supposed to UPHOLD LIFE!!! A little more on this annoying document shortly..
2. Ahhh...you say...but life doesn't begin at conception. It can't begin until...um...21 weeks? Delivery? The abortionist (at least those shown on the Planned Parenthood videos) has to convince himself that life doesn't begin until the...thing...fetus...mass...is outside the womb. Then, magically, it's alive! What a miracle for something that has no more biological (or, apparently, moral) significance than a rock to grow for 9 months and require food...and move...and respond to stimulus (I can attest to this firsthand!)...to basically be like one of those Sea Monkeys you buy from the back of a comic book for a few dollars. Then...when it hits air...it's instantly transformed into a human - endowed with all the abilities and rights of same!
See...I have a hunch that the abortion doctors don't buy the redefinition of life either. If it were just a rock or a sea monkey being removed, you wouldn't have to do something very specific to end its existence. A rock (or something at that level) doesn't require scissors to strategically excise it (at least not for the rock's sake) or a vacuum applied at the right place to terminate its...um...get rid of it. You just take it out. Period. Then throw it away without a pang of conscience.
3. So if it does have life of some sort...where is the equivalency here? Single-celled organism? Insect? Small pet? See...here we are already getting into iffy territory. Because if you harm an animal, are cruel to an animal, torture an animal, perform deadly experiments on an animal, kill an animal - you are in serious trouble. That carries heavy penalties that sometimes make the penalties for harming human life seem trivial (do we need examples or can most people say they have seen this?). The point is that the life of a dog or cat can easily be said to have great significance to this culture. Even on films that don't have animals it is necessary to say that no animals were harmed in the making of this film.
Therefore, if we can agree that the way broader Western culture generally views animal cruelty is with a sterner eye than towards abortion, we are justified in saying that the unborn are viewed on the level (at best) of a pet. A dog or a cat. And probably lower. Thus...it is optimistic to say the unborn are considered no better than a small animal. But I guess if we are all animals, then what's the difference, right?
4. So that's it, isn't it? We're all animals, so what we do with an unborn animal doesn't matter. But again, why take such care in disposing of an "unborn animal" if that's all we are? To be honest, the brutality and cruelty engaged in by Planned Parenthood is just a logical end of the whole line of thought. Once life is so demeaned, why does it matter when we dispose of it and how we dispose of it? It isn't as if it's born and out on its own - so it's even less than one of us animals. So why is it murder to kill a baby after it's out of the womb but not to do so 30 seconds earlier while it is still inside the mother? Legalese. If you can avoid calling it "life", then you don't have to protect it. But our revulsion at abortion techniques is not misplaced because we know just as the abortion doctor with his implements of destruction knows - if it wasn't life, there would be no issue of conscience. There would be no question of how best to get rid of this mass of tissue. And since people who kill animals are sometimes now called "murderers" in popular culture (see recent death of "Cecil the Lion" as an example) the thought is already there that we are no better than wild animals. But we know, innately, that that isn't true. So it takes lawyers to assuage our consciences by modifying the definitions of "person", "life" and "murder" to suit our desires. Thus, "murdering a baby" can be changed (for convenience) into "aborting a fetus" and eventually becomes swallowed up in the comforting appellation "Pro-choice".
Reading the Declaration of Independence a little further, it is scary how such a behemoth as the power and authority of American government can be used to undermine its own mandate and make a 180 degree turn from its original stance and totally negate its own foundations :
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The infant is such a threat to the safety of this nation that we need to get rid of them at the rate of more than 1 million per year. Yes...we think they are a threat to our personal "Happiness", but that is such a short-sighted, self-centred, egotistical viewpoint that the generation that believes that is simply hastening to its own destruction. Even basic biological truths should tell us that propagation of the species is fundamental to its happiness. But we don't think about others anymore. It's all about ME.
So in thinking through the insanity surrounding this issue, I am also struck by how many approach this as an issue of defense of the unborn. Well... it is in a sense. But that's just a symptom. Keep trying to save the unborn and you won't do a thing to correct the real problem that is causing all this death and destruction for those who haven't even had a chance to cry out (literally). No... the real issue is the basic idolatry that man is engaging in when he tries to condone this.
History will judge this tendency to self-destruction coldly. It will show how the exaltation of self..."my rights"..."me"...all comes at the (great) cost of exalting the virtues of self-denial and self-sacrifice for others. You can't have both. If you are on the throne then others don't matter. But if you will sacrifice all you have for others (including - and maybe especially - for the unborn child) then you foster the environment that made this nation great. Even just permitted it to maintain its existence. Until we return to that basic ethic, there is no hope of turning the abortion epidemic around. Until the hearts and minds of people are changed, babies will be murdered without just cause in horrific numbers.
We don't know what liberty is (as a nation) any more. But we do know (and drown ourselves in) license and indulgence. The lie that has been swallowed is that this is what the Founders fought and died for - so that we could sacrifice the country for our own desires, instead of the other way around. We know nothing of self-denial because that would strip us of our rights (or so we think). Contrarily, George Washington :
Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
So not only is duty and sacrifice essential to maintaining happiness but looking outside ourselves is necessary to properly govern. Yet the same nation which was founded on this principle is attempting to cast out the very God and bible that was thought so necessary to rule. All on the pretext of "separation of church and state" and the idolizing of individual rights. Again...all this is just a flimsy excuse for self-indulgence. And anything that gets in the way (including children) needs to be taken out of the way.
That is the real problem. And that is the mindset that not only ennervates society generally, but the government that rules over it. We are creating our own tyranny and refuse to see it.
In thinking about the issue, some radical departures from common sense seem to circle around the debate today. Not the least of which (in my mind) are the following :
1. If you are for abortion, you are called "Pro-choice". This is almost euphemistic since it attempts to avoid the ugly truth and paint it with a seemingly positive brush. But if you stop to think about it for even a small amount of time, since when does that make anything better? In an age that is all about not infringing on "my" rights, what insanity omits this situation from that thinking? In other words, where does "choice" make it okay to commit murder (more on that contentious word in a moment)? In the founding documents of the nation?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Strike one (no pun intended). In fact, it is striking that the document goes on immediately to say that it is the government that is supposed to UPHOLD LIFE!!! A little more on this annoying document shortly..
2. Ahhh...you say...but life doesn't begin at conception. It can't begin until...um...21 weeks? Delivery? The abortionist (at least those shown on the Planned Parenthood videos) has to convince himself that life doesn't begin until the...thing...fetus...mass...is outside the womb. Then, magically, it's alive! What a miracle for something that has no more biological (or, apparently, moral) significance than a rock to grow for 9 months and require food...and move...and respond to stimulus (I can attest to this firsthand!)...to basically be like one of those Sea Monkeys you buy from the back of a comic book for a few dollars. Then...when it hits air...it's instantly transformed into a human - endowed with all the abilities and rights of same!
See...I have a hunch that the abortion doctors don't buy the redefinition of life either. If it were just a rock or a sea monkey being removed, you wouldn't have to do something very specific to end its existence. A rock (or something at that level) doesn't require scissors to strategically excise it (at least not for the rock's sake) or a vacuum applied at the right place to terminate its...um...get rid of it. You just take it out. Period. Then throw it away without a pang of conscience.
3. So if it does have life of some sort...where is the equivalency here? Single-celled organism? Insect? Small pet? See...here we are already getting into iffy territory. Because if you harm an animal, are cruel to an animal, torture an animal, perform deadly experiments on an animal, kill an animal - you are in serious trouble. That carries heavy penalties that sometimes make the penalties for harming human life seem trivial (do we need examples or can most people say they have seen this?). The point is that the life of a dog or cat can easily be said to have great significance to this culture. Even on films that don't have animals it is necessary to say that no animals were harmed in the making of this film.
Therefore, if we can agree that the way broader Western culture generally views animal cruelty is with a sterner eye than towards abortion, we are justified in saying that the unborn are viewed on the level (at best) of a pet. A dog or a cat. And probably lower. Thus...it is optimistic to say the unborn are considered no better than a small animal. But I guess if we are all animals, then what's the difference, right?
4. So that's it, isn't it? We're all animals, so what we do with an unborn animal doesn't matter. But again, why take such care in disposing of an "unborn animal" if that's all we are? To be honest, the brutality and cruelty engaged in by Planned Parenthood is just a logical end of the whole line of thought. Once life is so demeaned, why does it matter when we dispose of it and how we dispose of it? It isn't as if it's born and out on its own - so it's even less than one of us animals. So why is it murder to kill a baby after it's out of the womb but not to do so 30 seconds earlier while it is still inside the mother? Legalese. If you can avoid calling it "life", then you don't have to protect it. But our revulsion at abortion techniques is not misplaced because we know just as the abortion doctor with his implements of destruction knows - if it wasn't life, there would be no issue of conscience. There would be no question of how best to get rid of this mass of tissue. And since people who kill animals are sometimes now called "murderers" in popular culture (see recent death of "Cecil the Lion" as an example) the thought is already there that we are no better than wild animals. But we know, innately, that that isn't true. So it takes lawyers to assuage our consciences by modifying the definitions of "person", "life" and "murder" to suit our desires. Thus, "murdering a baby" can be changed (for convenience) into "aborting a fetus" and eventually becomes swallowed up in the comforting appellation "Pro-choice".
Reading the Declaration of Independence a little further, it is scary how such a behemoth as the power and authority of American government can be used to undermine its own mandate and make a 180 degree turn from its original stance and totally negate its own foundations :
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The infant is such a threat to the safety of this nation that we need to get rid of them at the rate of more than 1 million per year. Yes...we think they are a threat to our personal "Happiness", but that is such a short-sighted, self-centred, egotistical viewpoint that the generation that believes that is simply hastening to its own destruction. Even basic biological truths should tell us that propagation of the species is fundamental to its happiness. But we don't think about others anymore. It's all about ME.
So in thinking through the insanity surrounding this issue, I am also struck by how many approach this as an issue of defense of the unborn. Well... it is in a sense. But that's just a symptom. Keep trying to save the unborn and you won't do a thing to correct the real problem that is causing all this death and destruction for those who haven't even had a chance to cry out (literally). No... the real issue is the basic idolatry that man is engaging in when he tries to condone this.
History will judge this tendency to self-destruction coldly. It will show how the exaltation of self..."my rights"..."me"...all comes at the (great) cost of exalting the virtues of self-denial and self-sacrifice for others. You can't have both. If you are on the throne then others don't matter. But if you will sacrifice all you have for others (including - and maybe especially - for the unborn child) then you foster the environment that made this nation great. Even just permitted it to maintain its existence. Until we return to that basic ethic, there is no hope of turning the abortion epidemic around. Until the hearts and minds of people are changed, babies will be murdered without just cause in horrific numbers.
We don't know what liberty is (as a nation) any more. But we do know (and drown ourselves in) license and indulgence. The lie that has been swallowed is that this is what the Founders fought and died for - so that we could sacrifice the country for our own desires, instead of the other way around. We know nothing of self-denial because that would strip us of our rights (or so we think). Contrarily, George Washington :
Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
So not only is duty and sacrifice essential to maintaining happiness but looking outside ourselves is necessary to properly govern. Yet the same nation which was founded on this principle is attempting to cast out the very God and bible that was thought so necessary to rule. All on the pretext of "separation of church and state" and the idolizing of individual rights. Again...all this is just a flimsy excuse for self-indulgence. And anything that gets in the way (including children) needs to be taken out of the way.
That is the real problem. And that is the mindset that not only ennervates society generally, but the government that rules over it. We are creating our own tyranny and refuse to see it.