Posted on 08/03/2012 4:42:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
If every American was a Christian conservative Tea Partier...
1) …There would be fewer regulations, lower taxes, a business-friendly environment, and a much smaller government that would lead to considerably stronger economic growth and job creation. In fact, we'd probably have to dramatically increase the number of work permits we hand out to foreign workers, not because there are "jobs Americans won't do" (which don't actually exist), but because so many Americans would be employed that we'd have to bring in more people to do all of the available work.
2) ...The richest Americans would have more money. Of course, so would the middle class and the poor. In fact, the only Americans who wouldn't benefit economically would be the Americans who spend their lives relying on the government, instead of their own effort, to pay their bills.
3) ...We'd have some form of a Balanced Budget Amendment to insure that we don't have a deficit or a debt.
4) ...We'd have a much flatter, simpler tax code that you could fill out on a single sheet of paper.
5) ...Welfare and food stamps would still exist, but there wouldn't be as much need for them, it would be considered shameful to take either, and you can be sure that people would have to work for every hand-out they receive.
6) ...Social Security would be privatized and invested. That means the people who put nothing in would have nothing to take out, but the people who do pay in would have a lot more money to withdraw.
7) ...We'd still put some research money into alternative energy, but we'd also work to build a lot more nuclear power plants and we'd encourage private industry to produce more clean coal and natural gas. Oil would also be much cheaper because we'd have already drilled ANWR, the keystone pipeline would be built, and we'd be opening up federal land to environmentally responsible drilling at every opportunity. This would lead to much lower energy bills for the average American.
8) ...We'd have the same sort of "loser pays" legal system that’s practiced in much of the rest of the civilized world. That would dramatically reduce the number of lawsuits and the cost of legal insurance.
9) ...There would be a lot less government workers and the ones we’d have would make less on average than the taxpayers paying their salary.
10) ...Health care would be much cheaper and more efficient because you could buy insurance across state lines; we'd have tort reform, health care savings accounts, and tax credits for health care would go to individuals instead of companies, which means that you wouldn't lose your insurance if you lose your job.
11) ...The fence would be built, the border would be secure, anyone who overstayed his VISA would be tracked down and deported, and illegal aliens who did make it into the country would be forever barred from visiting here legally or becoming citizens.
12) ...Legal immigration would be faster, cheaper, and much more efficient. We'd also be selecting new American immigrants based on merit instead of rewarding people for breaking our laws or allowing them to come here because their son or cousin already managed to become a citizen.
13) ...English would be the national language.
14) ...People would look at you like you’re an idiot, as they should today, if you suggest that the Constitution is a living document. You'd also see a lot more Constitutional amendments because the Supreme Court would stick to the law as written unless it was amended.
15) ...The crime rate would be so low because of the lack of criminals and the prevalence of guns that in much of the country, people wouldn't bother to lock their doors.
16) ...The death penalty would be applied much more liberally for terrible crimes and it wouldn't take 15 years of appeals to carry it out.
17) ...All people would be welcome to practice their religious faith with no official state-run religion, just as the Founding Fathers intended. So, yes, you could have a manger in front of the town hall at Christmas and the Ten Commandments on a court house wall, and teachers in public school could teach from the Bible in class when it was appropriate.
18) ...Not only would there be no gay marriage, we'd be taking steps to strengthen marriage -- like getting rid of no-fault divorce and it would be acknowledged that a mother and a father would do a better job of raising kids than any other combination.
19) ....Children would be taught abstinence in school, having kids out of wedlock would be frowned upon, and abortion would be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.
20) ...Kids would start out school with the Pledge of Allegiance and a daily prayer.
21) ...We'd have school vouchers so that we could introduce competition into our school systems and allow all parents to send their kids to the same kind of schools that the rich do today. We'd also spend a lot more time teaching kids reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and economics and spend a lot less time worrying about their self-esteem.
22) ...You wouldn't have terrorists, communists, and people who hate America teaching at our universities.
23) ...Racism would practically be non-existent, there would be no need for the NAACP, LA RAZA, or Affirmative Action and people would, "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
24) ...We'd have safe water, safe food, clean air, and a clean environment, but we'd put an end to the years of legal challenges to new building projects and people having their land declared a "wetland" because the ground gets soggy for a few days a year.
25) ...There would be no public unions. Private unions would, of course, still exist, but no one would be forced to join and employers, if they so desire, would be able to fire everyone in the union and get a new work force.
“No disagreement.” (Smile) Why (outside core truths) that has never been a “problem” except for short periods, unless you are in a cult! Or in a liberal classroom i suppose.
(Two born again Christians can realize spontaneous fellowship in Christ which transcends nation, race, and denomination, based upon a shared Scripture-based conversion and relationship with their Lord and many related truths, as well as differ on aspects of meanings and theology even within minutes as well. But such need not negate essential unity.)
My goodness, you really do need to switch to decaf.
I never attacked anyone. Xthe only one around here getting attacked is me. If you dare express any kind of opinion other than southern baptist AOG around here you get branded as a heretic.
I guess we will stand together on the lines when the zombies come , but shortly thereafter I will be run out of the colony. That’s ok. It happened to my family in the 1600’s. We are used to it.
Diversity for Y’all seems to be sitting on the left side of church after fifty years of sitting on the right.
Good luck with your version of a Christian world. When Jesus comes back, he will be more pissed off at you than me. I will pray for you to regain your regular bowel movements.
I definitely don’t think going back to the 40’s or 50’s is a good idea. Too many secrets in families. That is when the majority of woman were beat up and children abused. It can be like today but some changes.
Perhaps you should read what you wrote. You accused the original poster of advocating a theocracy, when he didn't and indicated he gave you the willies.
You are accusing me of being something, although I will admit it lacks the clarity to to actually understand what. Either I'm a religious dogmatic or a flaming closet liberal, you weren't quite clear.
Amid all of this you squeel that you are being attacked. go figure. At any rate if you really care to see what I think of the original post, read post 25.
My apologize, I meant post #45.
I stand in awe of your ability to find fault where there is none. The original post back to me called me an idiot. Just because I stated that I would not want to live in a 100% Christian country.
I am just in awe of what a cesspool free republic has become. There is no discussion. No acceptance. Just goose stepping cross carrying assholes.
your post sounds like stuff I’ve posted before. Concur.
“”Today that could result in praying to Gia or ancestor worship, etc., as that reflects the deleterious difference between Christianity being the basic “civil religion”””
Found something we can agree upon. It’s Pluralism that has brought this country down to the extreme ideas of political correctness that is nothing more than cultural Marxism
Bill Lind wrote the following article in Academia .org in 2000 Here is some of it ,but it;s worth reading the whole thing
http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?
We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.
And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.
But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.
Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.
So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.
Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”
Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”
The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.
Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”
Another great article was written by Donald P. Goodman from an old Seattle Catholic article that addresses Pluralism...
Pluralism is simply indifferentism extended to the public square. The two are morally equivalent; indeed, they are simply two sides of the same coin. Just as indifferentism claims that religion is an indifferent matter for the soul of the individual, pluralism claims that religion is an indifferent matter for the proper constitution of the state. The two work hand-in-hand, and often invoke one another’s precepts to defend themselves. The standard pluralist argument, for example, runs that the state should recognize no one religion because doing so will alienate the believers of the other religions—and who is the state to say that those other religions will not bring their followers to salvation just as well as ours will us? Their principles are so intertwined that one cannot help but affirm that pluralism and indifferentism are simply two aspects of the same idea....
Pluralism also shares with indifferentism the tendency to destroy all real religion within their spheres. As the popes have declared, indifferentism results in the abandonment of all substantive religion4; after all, if the particular religion by which one worships God is irrelevant, then will not God be just as well pleased by an individual worship which is minimal to the point of non-existence? Indifferentism thereby leads its followers into a religion which requires neither morals nor worship, a religion devoid of any substantive content. Pluralism extends this tendency of indifferentism into the public sphere. The state, immediately or gradually, reaches the point where the only religious tenets it supports or even acknowledges are completely banal, or at least deprived of all significant content.5
Thus, pluralism falls under the same condemnations as indifferentism,6 in addition to the many which have been levied against it in its own right.7 The Church has always reacted very strongly to these theories, which presume to sever the state from its true philosophical, and therefore necessarily religious, underpinnings. That is because indifferentism and pluralism necessarily involve yet another heresy, a sort of liberal quietism, by which faith is a personal and private matter which must never enter into one’s public dealings.
Though pluralism, because it is simply a public manifestation of indifferentism, necessarily promotes a lack of any substantial religion in those living under its regime, there will always be those who resist this tide and maintain a faith which contains actual tenets requiring real, active fulfilment. Whenever such fulfilment, however, requires the conversion of others, it is violating the sacred doctrine of pluralism and indifferentism that all religions are equal, at least as far as salvation is concerned, because it presumes that the beliefs of the converted were less worthy of salvation than those of the converter. Such substantive faiths must be kept out of the public square as much as possible, even if the government of the pluralist state still insists on permitting the free exercise of all religions within its borders. Thus great social pressure arises encouraging the subsumation of such active faiths into simple, internal affairs, the active elements completed removed. Even arguing on behalf of a position from the standpoint of religious faith is considered bad form and insulting to the beliefs of others.8 Thus arises the great compartmentalization of life which effectively banishes religion not only from any official role in the state, but also from any unofficial role which it might play through the beliefs of individuals who participate in the pluralist society. Irreligion has been enshrined as the official state “church,” and the protestations of those few who continue to insist on an active, public faith are of no avail in the sea of pluralistic practical atheism.
Teaching morality is a little different from having prayer meetings. I have no problem with Christmas plays and the like in public schools. What I do have a problem is with public school teachers saying or leading students in prayers in the classroom. If you think the proper role of ps teachers is to lead students in prayer, then you better study what the constitution really means. If students want to have prayer meetings with teachers not on school time, that’s one thing. And I don’t give a fig how much or where it was done in the past. It has no place in a public school classroom.
Thanks. The Obamaphone justifies giving free phones with 250 minutes under the premise that “communication should not be limited to people in relation to what they are able to afford,” and if you replace communication with other conveniences you can see where this is heading.
The premise is that one does not need to earn privilege, and while this can be given as an act of grace those needy who humbly seek mercy, and which is to manifest a positive response, the liberal mind sees this as a right, and even something to be demanded or taken by force, no matter the lustful arrogant motive for power.
Thus the hippies took over admin bldgs, and their successors occupy public property today, and climb up some other way (Jn. 10:1) to position.
The original “occupy movement” was that of the devil seeking to occupy the throne of God, (Is. 14:13,14) trying to climb up some other way to position, apparently with 1/3 of other angels concurring, under the premise that God should “share the wealth,” that of His power.
And later the devil, in the Garden, sought to instill the victim entitlement mentality into Eve, that God was not dealing with her fairly, by not “sharing the wealth” of His knowledge, thus justifying her rebellion. (Gn. 3)
Nothing new.
Abortion should NOT be legal for ANY other reason than the mother will die if the pregnancy goes any further. Having an exception for "rape or incest" STILL makes the baby pay the penalty for the crime of the father. HOW someone is conceived should not be a criteria for whether or not they are allowed to live. In such cases, the mother should be encouraged and supported to continue to do what is right for the innocent baby, who has a right to life. Adoption should be easy and not overly expensive for the adopting couple and the birth mother given the right to know how her baby is progressing in life so that she is comforted in knowing she did the right thing.
What about those that rule themselves in a manner that is not acceptable to those that are in charge?
What I did say is that public school is blatantly unconstitutional and was created by socialists for the express purpose of indoctrinating children. This is happening every day and you are worried that children might hear the mention of God.
F*** the fence, build a wall...! (With armed soldiers patrolling it...!)
It’s hardly unconstitutional. If the states create the schools, how are they unconstitutional? Federal intervention is the problem. And I ‘m obviously not for teachers indoctrinating students in socialism. And no one else brought up teachers leading prayers? That was advocated in the main article. And other people, like you, seem to have no problem with the idea.
Don't tell me what I've conceded.
Those were not examples of the free expression of religion, which was the subject at hand. Nobody made a claim that they were state establishments of religion.
The inability to make logical distinctions might be the fundamental problem with a lot of people.
People have been intimidated by the most popular religion in America, "Cultural Marxism", better known as "Political Correctness". Progressives don't care about the constitution except as something to break, they don't care about traditional values, logical morality, enlightened self interest, or even the ethic of reciprocity. They want power, and in order to get it they have to break the constitution, they have to break the fundamental building block of our society, and they need to replace the moral code with their own. They have already co-opted our federal government at least with this administration. We are in a war to save our country from those that absolutely need to control or destroy it in order to further their ends.
That is why Christianity is always target along with the constitution, morals, and traditional values. They use divisive arguments to turn Republicans against each other. They lie, they cheat, they steal, they murder. They do everything they need to do in order to further their aims while we argue about mangers and the the 10 commandments.
But perhaps you have some train of logic that I'm not considering. Explain if you will.
This is where you guys lose not only me, but the majority of the population. Forcing a 12 year old to carry daddy's likely deformed offspring to term is not the moral high ground you think it is.
“and tax credits for health care “
What is so conservative about the income tax? Abolish the 16th then you can talk.
A few thoughts on this:
EVERY human being should have the right to life.
An unborn baby IS a human being.
This unborn human had NOTHING to do with how he/she was conceived, so killing him/her is forcing capital punishment on the MOST innocent life of all.
In many cases of incest, the father of the unborn human is the one who INSISTS on the abortion to hide his crime.
Forcing a young girl to undergo an abortion is adding another layer of injury to her ordeal. Aborting the baby does not UNDO the crime committed on her but it DOES release the perpetrator from criminal prosecution and often frees him to CONTINUE the abuse on her as well as other girls.
Abortion is an act that NEVER leaves the girl/woman unscathed. It is something that will haunt her the rest of her life and she will "see" her child in the face of every other child she sees. It does NOT take away the pain of incest, it only adds to the pain. At a young age, girls who undergo abortion are at extreme risk of injury - that could make her sterile and unable to EVER have a child - and death. Any girl that CAN get pregnant can also carry the child to term safely with good medical care.
Saying that a baby from incest is "likely deformed" is passing judgment again on who should and should not be allowed to live. There is NO proof that incest ALWAYS causes birth defects, but is a birth defect any reason for killing someone? Did the baby ASK for it? Are we going to allow only perfect babies to live?
The "moral high ground" is in realizing that it is GOD that opens and closes the womb and ALL life happens because HE allows it to happen. Murder is NEVER a moral high ground. That innocent baby that comes from such a crime deserves to be loved and wanted and the equally innocent child that carries such a baby deserves to be supported and loved and to give that new life within her a chance to live the life God has planned for him/her with parents that will love and cherish her/him. This choice, in the long run, IS the moral high ground and it affects genuine healing to know that what was meant for evil, God meant for good. Good CAN come from evil.
It is looking at the big picture that enables me and others to realize that abortion MUST become unthinkable before it can ever become illegal. We aren't there yet and may never be, but a deep respect for life cannot exclude those who are the most innocent - the inconvenient unborn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.