This is part two of the charge by liberals that we conservatives are "against science." This time, I'd like to offer the Logic of Abortion. Below are answers to 10 statements about abortion using reason and evidence. Note that there is nothing in here from the Bible. This is plain logic which if rejected by the abortion supporter reveals that HE or SHE is the one unwilling to face the truth!!
1. I WOULDN'T HAVE AN ABORTION MYSELF, BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO. Well, let's see how that logic holds up. What do you think about these statements?--"I wouldn't own a slave myself, but I wouldn't want to prohibit anyone else from doing so." "I wouldn't commit rape myself, but I wouldn't stop anyone else from doing so."
2. IF A BABY IS NOT WANTED, IT MAY BE BORN INTO A TERRIBLE LIFE. Should "wantedness" be the standard for life? If wantedness is the standard, should those who don't WANT a particular group around (say, homosexuals), have the right to kill them? Actually, there is no such thing as an "unwanted" baby. There are more couples wanting to adopt than there are babies available.
3. A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY.
Is a baby in the mother's womb really her own body? Of course, it is NOT her own body. The baby has a different set of chromosomes and half the time it is even a different sex.
4. MEN JUST DON'T GET IT. DO YOU THINK THAT ANYONE CAN TELL A MAN WHAT HE CAN OR CANNOT DO WITH HIS OWN BODY? Does a man have a right to rape as an expression of his own body? Abortion advocates say they want to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN. But they only want to protect a subset of women--those who can fend for themselves. What about UNBORN women--the ones that cannot fend for themselves? Don't they have rights, indeed an unalienable right to life?
5. A FETUS IS NOT HUMAN LIFE UNTIL IT IS BORN. Well, first the baby is HUMAN. (What other species could it be?) And second, she is certainly ALIVE. (The child grows every day.) Abortion kills human life.
6. FETUSES CANNOT FEEL PAIN, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT FULLY HUMAN. Assuming you are correct in saying that the fetus can't feel pain, do you believe that anyone who cannot feel pain is not human? Should born people who lose the ability to feel pain also lose their civil rights? Fact: Embryos just nine weeks after conception (first trimester) begin to respond to noxious (painful) stimuli. By 13 weeks gestation, the fetus responds to noxious stimuli in all areas of their body much as a born child, except for the top of their head and the middle of their back. By 20 weeks, scientists are convinced that a child feels pain in the same sense that we feel pain.
7. EMBRYOS AND FETUSES ARE NOT SENTIENT, THAT IS, ABLE TO EXPERIENCE PHYSICAL AND POSSIBLY EMOTIONAL FEELING OR SENSATIONS, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT FULLY HUMAN. Are you sentient when you are asleep? Are you sentient if someone or something renders you unconscious? Would you say that as long as a born person was not sentient, someone should have the right to kill them?
8. WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO JUDGE ANYONE? What do you think--was killing Jews right? Was killing blacks right? Does someone have the right to walk into a school and shoot children? Is killing an innocent human being ever right? Doesn't society have the obligation to protect the innocent?
9. YOU PRO-LIFERS ARE INCONSISTENT; YOU FAVOR THE DEATH PENALTY. There is a big difference. In one case (a baby), the person is innocent. In the other case (a criminal), the person is guilty.
10. WHAT ABOUT RAPE OR INCEST? If we agree on the violence of rape, do we also agree that abortion is an act of violence against another human being? Do you believe the first act of violence (rape) could justify a second act of violence (abortion)? A woman is not responsible for the violence of rape against her, but if she willingly seeks an abortion, has she not also participated in a violent act against an innocent unborn child?
For the full article on abortion, with more questions and answers, see
Abortion: A Reasoned Dialogue.
Sincerely and hopefully,
Charles Meek
Off Grid Blogger
*********************
The utopian perfectibility that liberals crave is detrimental to society--indeed, not even possible by government edict or by any human effort. Liberals are deceived in thinking they are working for good. The welfare state, while well-intentioned, institutionalizes indolence and poverty--and is thereby immoral. The result of the welfare state is not true charity; rather it is theft from one group to benefit another group in order to keep the latter on the dole for political votes.
While a just society will seek equality of opportunity and appropriate assistance for the truly needy, liberal redistribution schemes ultimately hurt both the recipients and the contributors. Wealth redistribution forced by the heavy hand of the state distorts the moral arrangement between parties when charity is freely given. There is a difference between a hand-up and a hand-out.
Biblically ordered liberty is moral. But liberalism in any of its forms, properly understood, is tyrannical. All forms of utopian statism have as their root the need to control other people by edict rather than by conscience. Statism is inherently inefficient, produces little, takes resources from the productive economy, and is therefore detrimental to growth and the welfare of a society.
Liberalism has everything turned on it head. It punishes achievement but rewards failure. Liberal thought is often opposed to objective moral values and is opposed to a moral authority above itself. Thus liberal thought says that rights come from government, rather the American ideal of unalienable rights from God. It is demonstrably true that little is sacred with liberalism outside of one's personal subjective feelings or political power--not the Bible, not the Constitution, not the Rule of Law, not natural law, nor even life itself.
Thus liberalism is the least likely system to honor the inherent worth of the individual, and the most likely to harm the most vulnerable in society such as the expendable elderly and the innocent unborn. Liberals' profession of tolerance is hypocritical as liberals certainly do not tolerate opposition to their errant views. Liberals are tolerant until you disagree; then you become a racist hillbilly. Indeed, the further left a society progresses the more it is intolerant and destructive--a fact proven time and again by history.
While liberals may be moral and well-intentioned in their own lives, their views are not consistent with what is good. In actuality liberals are working to tear down or distort everything that is good and elevate what is evil--including in art, music, culture, business, politics, science, sexuality, education, truth, beauty, justice, morality, and logic. So ironically liberalism is neither moral, compassionate, tolerant, nor effective. Christian capitalism is the most moral, leads to the most freedom, and produces the most economic benefits for society.
"One of the greatest mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." --Milton Friedman
|
