A is For…Abortion

Apparently, there is a new movement called “A is For…” where celebrities and others speak up about “women’s health.” The reality is they’re concerned over the anti-abortion legislation and attitudes that have arisen within our government and the general populace. Masking this as a women’s health issue, they’re attempting to remove the stigma of an abortion and almost make it a virtue. While I do believe and have stated previously that supporters of the pro-life movement, especially Christians, must be careful how they approach those who have had abortions, to make it into a virtue goes beyond the pale.

To create a movement that celebrates abortion, however, is morally vapid. It isn’t about women’s reproduction rights or about controlling women. After all, there aren’t any major movements attempting to displace women from leadership roles in America, have them wear dresses, or forbidding bikinis. The entire debate over women’s rights ends up on the one issue where two human lives are concerned; that of the mother and that of the unborn human.

So what is A really for?

A is for Asinine…the belief that the abortion debate solely concerns women’s rights is asinine. If anything, the debate concerning abortion from a pro-life perspective has literally nothing to do with women’s rights; not because we devalue women, but because we value life so much. To say that people who want to eradicate abortions simply because they hate women or are against women’s rights is akin to saying those against the radical honor killings in Islam are somehow anti-Islam; in the case of abortion there are women who are against abortion, just as there are Muslims against honor killings. From a pro-life perspective we can value a woman’s rights so long as her rights don’t infringe upon another person’s rights. Those who are pro-choice simply leave aside the idea that the fetus is a human person qualified for the minimum right to life; the pro-life side is simply attempting to push them back to this point. We believe that no one has the right to take an innocent human person’s life. The arguments used for abortion are weak, but they’re used because they make it more palatable. Abortion is completely asinine.

A is for Atrocity…an atrocity is any act that is wicked and cruel, involving a lot of physical pain and suffering. Thus, a warlord sending his minions through a village to murder the innocent via machete is an atrocity; it goes beyond an act of war and causes great suffering to the person involved. Abortion is an atrocity, due to the suffering it causes the fetus and the potential emotional suffering it can cause to the woman (not to mention physical side effects). The abortion terminates a human life, typically by ripping the body apart. While not all women suffer from emotional side-effects, quite a few do suffer emotional damage and hold on to regret. This can and does lead to bigger problems later in life.

A is for Abhorrent…abortion is abhorrent because we’re eradicating future generations. 1973 is when abortion was erroneously protected as a right by a flawed Supreme Court. Next year will mark the 40th anniversary of this horrible decision. 40 years of eradicating doctors, scientists, historians, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters. 40 years of murdering our own children. Let us assume we came across a hidden culture where if a child got in the way of a parent, no matter the age, the parent could simply have the child killed. Certainly this would cause moral disgust within us; that is what it means when something is abhorrent.

A is for Anthropophagic…this is simply a big word for “cannibalistic.” Abortion is a type of cannibalism in that we’re eating away at our future. We’re sacrificing our children for our own selfish desires. On the “A is for” website, men are told that they should fight for abortion because they may not be ready to be fathers. Women are told to fight for it because they may not be ready to be mothers. Essentially, what we’re being told is that in order to sate our own selfish hunger for autonomy, we must feed on the flesh of our unborn children. While we don’t literally eat them, we eat their lives away in order to sustain our own. What would have happened if your grandparents were killed in the cradle because the parents were afraid they couldn’t feed them? Your parents, your aunts and uncles, your cousins, your brothers and sisters, potentially your children and you’re grandchildren would all be dead. The act of abortion doesn’t just devour the life of the fetus, but kills all future lives that would result from that child. In one act of abortion we cannibalize millions so we can protect ourselves.

A is for Apostasy…the more pagan and secular a society becomes, the more its children are left by the wayside. For both the Greeks and the Romans, under their pagan stages it was fairly common for children to be molested and used as sexual objects. Even as Rome became more secular via Stoicism (prior to Christianity), unwanted children were often left for dead. For the Ancient Near East children were often offerred up as sacrifices to the god Moloch. In the Eastern Bloc, under secular Communism, children were often abandoned by parents in orphanages where they were left to fend for themselves.  When modernity hit the West we began to see children forced into factories; it wasn’t until Christians stood up against this that we began to see reform. Apostasy is the denial of God, but the consequences of apostasy is that we end up denying ourselves. In our attempt to kill God we inevitably end up killing ourselves because we are made in his image. Abortion is a symptom of a greater disease, but it is a symptom we must treat.

A is for Awful…abortion brings to mind nothing good. No one does (or at least no one should) celebrate abortions. The reason is the context that begets an abortion is never a good one. Sadly, the majority of abortions that occur today are with women who have the financial means to sustain a child, but just don’t want the responsibility. 57% of the women who have abortions are between the ages of 20-29, meaning they’re starting their professional careers, so typically a child is “in the way.” However, for the 16% who are under the age of 18, or the .3% under the age of 15, or those in poverty, or those who were raped, it’s an awful situation. Our society is structured in such a way as to tell these women that the only way for them to continue on with life is to kill their own child. We have few support systems for single mothers (who account for about 85%) and sadly many pro-life advocates are ardent fiscal conservatives, meaning they’d like to see abortion banned, but will also withhold tax dollars to help the women impacted by this. Abortion is an awful situation because while it takes a human life, it also exposes our society as empty and uncaring.

A is for Abortion…which is everything I have described it to be. That’s all this movement is supporting; not women’s rights, not anything noble; it’s supporting the intentional killing of an innocent human being.


To Murder God is to Murder Society as We Know It

A few years ago The Daily Mail ran an op-ed concerning how the world is better off without autistic children and people with disabilities. The reasoning isn’t because such people lower the utility of a society or dilute the gene pool – both of which are horrendous arguments to begin with – but rather because they just make life tough on the parents and caretakers. And that’s the entirety of the reasoning right there; “They hurt me, so I should kill them.” The focus is on the individual and value simply isn’t extended beyond the individual.

Of course, with modern arguments for infanticide, it’s no stretch to believe that toddlers who are discovered to have autism or some other handicap could easily be murdered. What if a child is born healthy, but due to an accident or disease, is left crippled? Well, then the child becomes a burden on the parents, so we should kill him. The child can’t walk? Kill him. Your 17 year old son is in a car accident and placed in a coma? You should kill him, because there’s no promise that he’ll come out of it functioning normally. After all, why should you suffer through the burden of helping someone else?

Sadly, Hitler was far nobler than these people. Hitler’s argument wasn’t about the individual, but rather for society; in order to better society, Hitler argued that those who were disabled and undesirable simply had to be killed. As sick as Hitler was in what he did, at least his goal was better than what we are arguing for now! And that’s not to defend Hitler; what he did was disgusting and we rightfully revile him for it. Rather, I’m saying the people who argue for killing the disabled simply because the disabled are an “inconvenience” are worse than Hitler, they’re more evil than him, they are more twisted than he is.

That’s not an emotional outburst either, it’s objectively true. Hitler killed the disabled and sterilized them, things that we rightfully condemn today. Yet, here we have people making the exact same case, only for a much darker purpose; rather than trying to help society, they just care about themselves and say you should too.

The Western-World is becoming more and more “post-Christian,” which is really nothing more than the world was when it was “pre-Christian;” a place where tyranny reigned freely and the oppressed had no hope beyond death. The ancient Spartans had no qualms about killing infants they deemed unworthy. The Romans thought nothing of leaving children in the wilderness to die if the child was viewed as potentially weak. They also had no problem killing slaves or those deemed as inhuman.

While many in the Western-World continue to dance on God’s grave, the one that Nietzsche made, they blissfully ignorant of Nietzsche’s proclamation. “God is dead” they say with glee, yet they forget what comes with that. Nietzsche writes in the parable of the madman (found in The Gay Science):

“Whither is God” he [the madman] cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now?Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as though an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night and more night coming on all the while? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves? What was holiest and most powerful of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever will be born after us – for the sake of this deed he will be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.” (from Walter Kaufmann’s translation)

Nietzsche points out that if we are truly going to kill God, we must live with the fact that we cannot act as though He is alive. Thus, the idea of humans having rights, having innate value, of not killing someone just because they annoy us, and the like have absolutely no meaning in light of God’s death. Nietzsche saw this and any atheist who is honest with himself recognizes this as well. It’s not that atheism lacks an ethos (it can develop one quite well enough), but simply that it cannot piggy-back on Christian morality.

So we approach this issue of murdering children because they become a burden to us. We look at the original article and the reasoning given is, “Autistic children are difficult to deal with, so why let them live?” The same question could be asked of any two-year-old. A child draws on the wall and keeps doing so, after not being told. To the gas chamber with her! But we find this deplorable, but why? If God’s funeral is over and spoken of how natural He looked in repose, we must fling ourselves away from this Christian morality. In doing so, we end up with the arguments from egoism, stating that I should look out for myself first. We end up with arbitrary lines on what is and isn’t human.

Within Christianity, however, all humans are equal for all humans are made in the image of God. The more I must sacrifice for a child, the more I must show I love him. Why do I sacrifice? Because in Christianity, to show love one must sacrifice. The less likely someone is to pay me back for my kind deed, the more sacrifice I have made; the less likely I am to be repaid, the more I have loved.

Thus, in comparison we have the world sans God and the world with God. Post-God’s dead, we have no way to really give value to humans beyond, “We give value to humans.” Humans become nothing more than currency; a piece of cloth with a dead president on it only means something because we say it means something. If we drop $1 million in $100 bills to a culture who knows nothing about the US, the paper will be kindle for a fire. It has no value. In a world without God, man becomes the currency. We only have value because we say we have value and should a majority of us determine that this type of man has no value, then we can rob him of value. In the world with God, however, man has value because he is made in the image of God. To kill him is to commit a crime against God.

Thus, one must realize that to say “God is dead” (that is, God doesn’t exist) is to reject the Judeo-Christian ethic. One simply can’t embrace it because one has rejected its foundation. How absurd to request a mushroom sauce, but demand the cook remove the mushrooms because you find them so distasteful. How absurd to request a Christian ethic, but demand the ethicist remove God because you find Him so distasteful. Therefore, if you be bold enough, abandon Judeo-Christian morality if you’re going to abandon God. However, if you find that you cannot live in such a world, then from an existential perspective, perhaps you should begin to realize that God is very much alive, regardless of your objections.

The Logical Conclusion of Abortion (Part 1)

Recently, two ‘ethicists’ (I use this term very liberally, as in they talk about ethics, not that they’ve come to any substantial conclusion) have published the idea that it’s okay to kill infants as they are not really persons. The standard they offer for being a person with a right to life is, “…individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” Of course, such a standard is asinine to anyone who has taken a basic course in logic and knows anything about humans, or animals in general.

The irony is that everything in existence with some sense of rationality, even at a bare minimum, views losing one’s life as a loss. This is why gazelle run away from lions, why spiders run away from a falling shoe, and why babies cry when they get hungry; no creature in life accepts death, all creatures struggle against it. Thus, by this standard we should conclude that (1) no one meets this standard, thus we can kill whoever we want or (2) everything meets this standard, so we shouldn’t kill anything (including any plants that have natural defense mechanisms built in).

Of course, such an absurdly stupid standard can be turned on the philosophers who wrote this tripe. For instance, they were quite upset at the death threats they received over the publication of their article. Aside from the fact that being pro-life, yet threatening the life of another is a tad bit hypocritical, these two individuals are in no better position as they are being hypocritical. The fact is, I cannot know anyone’s mind, thus I cannot know if these two individuals have attributed some basic value to being deprived of their existence. They may say so and act so, but infants do this as well, as do all other animals (all animals act as though losing their life would constitute the loss of something of value). So I can’t trust their actions or what they say. Now, the key word is “capable,” but even this doesn’t mean much – again, all animals fight to survive, indicating that all animals are capable of attributing value to their lives.

With the above in mind, using the standard of these philosophers, what’s wrong with killing them? By their standard, when applied properly, how would anyone be wrong for terminating their lives? Not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense, they are now left attempting to defend why it would be wrong to kill them. Perhaps these ethicists should thank us pro-life philosophers and thank the Judeo-Christian tradition of the West, lest the mentality of “kill everyone who disagrees” were to take hold.

Yet, in all the arguments for the pro-choice position, every single one of them attempts to (1) create an arbitrary standard for what it means to be a “person” and (2) accepts Cartesian dualism without batting an eye, not realizing that there’s good reason that personhood is tied into our very nature; that is, personhood is not something we acquire or develop, rather it is something that we hone. With such standards, is it any surprise that we can apply them to any situation in life? Those people living in extreme poverty are not really “persons” because they’ve lacked the proper education to really develop personhood; so it’d just be better if we killed them. While some might argue, “Yes, but they can learn!” I would quickly point out that so can an infant, given time. “But an infant has to grow up and develop the capacity for learning!” And how does an infant do this but by learning? Thus, the capacity for learning already exists, just in a smaller degree to the person living in extreme poverty. Therefore, if it’s right to kill the infant, it’s right to kill the person in poverty, but if it’s wrong to kill the person in poverty, then it’s wrong to kill the infant.

The full post that I want to make to this will take a bit longer as I want to put more effort into it and write an actual reply to the article. This one is simply my initial thoughts; suffice it to say, I’m a bit dismayed at the article because (1) it’s morally abhorrent and (2) if this is the level of what it takes to get into Oxford or Cambridge, then it would seem that education is suffering everywhere, not just in America.

The Importance of Life or Why Funding to Planned Parenthood is Inconsequential

Rob Schwarzwalder over at Life News wrote back on May 6 about how our media can’t help but to refer to unborn children as, well, unborn children. He writes,

Here are some things in life you just can’t avoid:  Death and taxes come to mind, of course, and the seeming inevitability of the Cubs’ ultimate collapse. There are others.  One of them is the inescapable reality that abortion involves not a collation of tissue but the destruction of a person, a human being.

This is not just a theological assertion or philosophical rumination: We know from medical science that from conception, the unborn child has the entire DNA of a fully mature adult.  What changes at time of birth is not the humanness of the child but his or her place of residence: For nine months, the womb was home; for the remainder of a person’s life, it is the world around us.

Even the mass media cannot help itself.  In ordinary stories, the personhood of the child pops up in the simple reportage of stories of the day.  However much the pro-abortion movement has sought to shape the language of popular culture and public education, the fact that the little ones in the womb are, in fact, people, keeps intruding itself into public discourse.

He then goes on to give examples where the media refers to the fetus (I use the word “fetus” in the proper sense, to refer to “a little one” and do not use it as a way to rob the humanity from the unborn) as an “unborn child” rather than “mass of tissues.” By calling the fetus “unborn child” they recognize the humanity involved in pregnancy.  Continue reading

Evaluating the Abortion Debate

It seems that in America, once an issue has been debated for a while the arguments for the issue end up becoming nothing more than bumper stickers. While we can flesh out arguments, the “bumper-stickers” adequately summarize the arguments. The thing is, a lot of these arguments are bad and they happen on the pro-life and pro-choice sides. For the pro-choice sides, their entire stance is based upon bad arguments, while for the pro-life side their arguments merely weaken their case.

“Abortion is a complicated issue…”

It’s very popular for people on both sides of the abortion issue to say, “Well, it’s a complicated issue.” The fact is, the issue just isn’t all that complicated. If the embryo or fetus is a human being, then he has the right to life and there’s no reason to abort; if the embryo or fetus isn’t a human being, then there’s no reason to oppose abortion.

And that’s really what it boils down to at a popular level. Is the fetus human or not? If the fetus is human, then we must outlaw abortion. If the fetus isn’t a human, then we shouldn’t restrict abortion.

What people are generally referring to are the psychological issues surrounding the abortion debate and other difficulties, such as the emotional stress a mother must endure, the physical stress, the financial difficulties in even carrying a child to term, etc. But none of these deal with the issue of taking a human life itself; after all, all of these problems can be alleviated if not eliminated. Likewise, the psychological issues – traumatic though they are – don’t (or shouldn’t) factor into our decision on whether or not abortions should occur.

Let us assume that a single mother who has an 8 month old infant comes home one day after being laid off from work. Due to the economy, she knows that the best her and her children can hope for is six months unemployment; after that, there’s no aid to be had. She worries she won’t find a job. Likewise, her young infant is still breastfeeding and can’t take formula, so the mother’s body is put at a burden on top of all the issues of paying for her infant. Not seeing any hope for her future, she takes her baby to the doctor and has the baby put to death. Would we, as a nation, support a mother’s legal right to perform such an action? What if the child were two-years-old? What if the child were ten-years-old?

For most people, the immediate reaction is “absolutely not!” Why? Because we properly view all the stages of the child’s development as being a human. We also think that innocent human beings cannot be intentionally killed, especially in a government-sanctioned manner.

So returning to the issue of the fetus, if the fetus is a human being, just like the child in our example, why should the psychological aspects surrounding abortion impact how we view the legality of abortion? While the psychological aspects are real and need to be addressed, they shouldn’t play a part in the legality or morality of the issue.

Thus, the issue of abortion boils down to whether or not the fetus is a human or not. By definition, that’s not complicated. So it’s actually a very simple issue. Continue reading

“Abortions Should be Safe, Legal, and Few” and Other Illogical Statements

Two things keep coming up within the pro-choice crowd that really don’t make any sense to me; first, they say they want to reduce the number of abortions, and secondly they say they never want to eradicate abortion for cases of rape and incest.

The first one doesn’t make sense to me because what reason do we have to make abortion rare if the fetus isn’t a human person? If abortion is just a medical procedure, then why make it rare? We don’t make removing warts rare or getting treatment for cancer rare, so why would abortion be the lone exception?

When abortionists make such a claim, they are either being inconsistent or lying. Either they really do want abortions to dwindle in number, in which case we ask “Why?”, or they’re simply saying it to get people off their backs. If the first is true, then they must be giving credence to the idea that the fetus is worth some value, in which case abortion becomes abhorrent. If, instead, they are lying, then we must ask why they feel the need to lie. If, after all, an abortion is simply a medical procedure, why don’t they justify that position rather than lying about desiring a lowered number of abortions?

The second position is one where some in the pro-choice crowd who admit that while they believe abortion should be banned for “at will” abortions, they should still be allowed in cases of rape or incest. In fact, if one takes the stance that abortion should be banned in cases of rape or incest, one takes the risk of being labeled an extremist. But what people fail to notice is the necessity of logical thinking. If the fetus is a human person, then even if he comes about because of rape or incest, he is still entitled to certain rights. So while the event is absolutely tragic, there is no reason to compound the tragedy by killing an innocent human life. Likewise, if we believe that abortions should be few because we believe the fetus to be a human life, then why would rape and incest serve as exceptions?

In short, it seems that the pro-choice crowd has taken an illogical position because they’re too afraid to say what they’re really thinking, mostly because what they’re really thinking lacks any scientific or philosophical reasoning.