I have yet to hear any right wing extremist Republicans, surely the most hateful people on the planet, propose banning, cutting funding for, or restricting THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCE.
Have you?
"But since you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth." -- Revelation 3:16 (CEV)
Correction: Normal humans have only 46 chromosomes.
Mrs VS
Mrs VS
Former Clinton Administration Surgeon General Joceyln Elders has admonished conservatives to "get over their love affair with the fetus."
Can I just say something here? Praise the good Lord she is GONE!
This article is full of the very kind of spurious specious arguments, representing themselves as Bible Christian teaching, that make Christianity odious to the intelligent of this world, who would embrace the teachings of the Bible if not so misrepresented by these pompous religious authorities.
Here are a few comments on the worst of what is in this article:
1) If a baby is only a "wad of cells" at conception, what process turns it into more than a wad of cells?
Birth.
2) Who can guarantee that such barbaric practices do not cause the unborn baby any pain?
The whole question here is the question of conscious experience. A person under anesthesia will often exhibit all of the behaviors associated with experiencing pain, even though they consciously experience no pain, and upon awaking have no recollection of any painful experience.
The unborn are essentially asleep. The sleeping, even those in coma, when tested, show reactions to simuli, and we know they are not consciously experiencing them. It is almost certain that actual conscious experience begins with the first breath, which of course only occurs after birth.
In any case, this is a very dangerous argument, since it essentially argues that a decision ought to be made on what is NOT known. Consciousness is subjective, and another's conscious experience can never be known. Arguments for action based on the unknown are always false, and are the basis for almost all animal rights and radical environmentalist policies.
3) No government can be trusted with defining personhood. No matter what the Nazi government said about the Jews, they were still persons. No matter what the United States Supreme Court of the last century said about Negroes, they are still persons. That mistake led to the American Civil War. No matter what the modern Supreme Court says about unborn babies, they are still persons.
If the government is not to be allowed to determine personhood, you can be sure, your dog and cat, and the roaches will soon be able to sue you.
The whole argument here is spurious because the question is not personhood, but who has the right to make decisions about persons, depending on their status and relationships to others. Basically, it is the question of who has a right to determine the disposition of one's children, the state or the parents. Christians want the state to have the authority to determine the fate of their children. People who love freedom believe children belong to the parents, and until the children have reached an age of ability to choose for and support themselves, their children are none of the government's business.
Christians do not understand, that if they give the government the power to determine the fate of their children, it will ultimately be use against them and their children.
4) The vast majority of Americans support abortion.
No truth is established by the number of its adherents.
5)The abortion issue is simply an issued of reproductive freedom for women.
The issue is a moral, private one, not a government issue. Abortion is sin, which can be forgiven, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is never forgiven. Do Christians want blasphemy against the Holy Spirit outlawed too?
6) Abortion is a "separation of church and state" issue.
It is a "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," issue. Children, born or unborn, do not belong to the state, they belong to the parents, and no secular government may morally determine, based on religious views, what a family may or may not do relative to that which does not belong to the state.
7) Women have a Constitutional right to abortion.
In order to support his pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision, Justice Blackmum invented a "right to privacy" which is unmentioned in the Constitution and twisted it to refer to abortion. The "Constitutional right to abortion" exists only in a liberal fantasy world. It is only a product of their imaginations. It is found nowhere in the Constitution.
It is correct that the so-called "right-to-privacy" is spurious, but the right to property is essential, even though the Constitution fails to enumerate it. A child is the "property" of its parents until such time it is capable of exsting on its own. (This only means it is the property of the parents, rather than the state. This does not mean the parents may treat children as if they were not human beings, and, morally, parents are obligated to do everything in their power to nurture and support their children.) It is not the business of the state to interfere in the relationship between parent and child. Christians who seek the state's interference in this relationship will ultimately see it used against them.
8)Abortion is too important a decision to be left up to the government.
Induce (sic) abortion is the premature, willful and violent penetration of a closed and safeguarded biological system. This unnatural medical procedure always exposes the mother to some risks. Unfortunately, the truth about these complications are often kept form (sic) the general public. The psychological aspects of abortion have devastated the lives of may women. Again, information about these potential damaging side-effects is normally kept from the general public.
Individual liberty and private property, and one's own family are too important a decision to be left up to the government. You can be certain if you give the government the power to determine who is and who is not born, it will not make the decision you want.
All medical procedures are "unnatural" and all involve danger. All decisions about children are traumatic and have emotional consequences. How these facts are being, "kept form the general public," is a mystery. It is certainly disseminated by the "right-to-life" groups, and is readily avialable to anybody who can read.
9) Anti-abortionists do not really care what happens after the baby is born.
It is the Christinan (sic), conservative, and traditional movements that are building the programs that really help America’s children: schools that genuinely educate, adoption services, church children’s programs and, most importantly strong homes. These programs (most especially the home and family) are under attack from the new pagans. From home schools to church camps, the best interests of America’s children are being served by the same people who oppose abortion.
Not anit-abortionists, (I am anti-abortion), but pro-government-enforcement of anti-abortion morality folks really do not care what happens after the baby is born. They are not really concerned if the baby will be beaten or abused, if it will become the next Charles Manson, or serial killer, or simply die of neglect because the mother hates the baby she was forced to bear. All of the "programs" for children that these Christians support and promote, while for the most part, beneficial, they do not at all address the actual situations of most of the desparate women who have abortions.
10) Only pro-choice candidates can be elected to public office in America.
This and the next two so called "myths" have nothing to do with the "abortion issue," and assume they are included so the author could round out the so-called 12 myths. He should have stopped at 9.
This may not be logic spewing forth from my brain, but it's the way I think, so sorry if it doesn't make sense.
I don't understand this "privacy" point. It's not a "right to privacy" to me personally. I mean, aren't many unethical acts done in the privacy of my own home or someone elses home. So if I beat my child to a bloody pulp, can I use the "privacy" argument with a judge. "This child is "my property" and I did this act in the "privacy" of my own home. You have no right to tell me what to do, you Christian zeolot, trying to put your morality on me"! Does a man have a right to "privately" rape a woman? Does someone have a right to "privately" murder someone in the woods when no one is looking?
It seems to me that this is not a religious issue at all. Sure plenty of religious Christians are against abortion. I do believe there is a God, I believe Jeusus Christ is his son, and he was the messiah. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. IF, I should wake up tomorrow, and decide the whole premiss of God, Jesus & Bible is bogus, I would still be pro-life. It's an ETHICAL and MORAL issue. Plenty of non-religious people have morals and ethics.
Sorry. I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning. None of that came out right. I have no idea what I'm trying to say.
I’m sure this piece will go a long way toward convincing devoutly Christian pro-life women not to have abortions.