Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hinckley buzzard
Yes, I agree. Natural law is intuitive and should be followed.

The real reason the law never, or seldom, prosecutes women is easy to ascertain. The problem is the unborn child is an “abstract” human being in a psychological sense. Regardless of all the flames directed at this assertion, it is nonetheless true. Pregnant women often see their developing child as “part of their body” and not as a person.

This is why fetal sonograms are not required as a form of informed consent prior to abortions. The reason being a woman who views such a sonogram and sees the child as a child, will often (but not always)avoid the abortion.

Deeper down we have the problem of the fatal dualism of human beings. That is, we are a combination of a biological body and what seems to be a divine sense of being that includes a sense of perpetuity. Without evidence of this divine aspect of humanity, the woman seeking an abortion thinks only in biological terms—this is not a person but a biological developing organism.

Those who want to hate and punish abortion perpetrators, including women, besides having to punish what seems to be an secular abstraction also must explain why in the present day US that over a million women (14,000 alone in Minnesota)do obtain abortions. A wildly popular procedure based on seeing a developing child as an abstraction and not as a person. Very hard to find secular laws to enforce what seems to be an abstract crime.

Soren Kierkegaard was certainly not a Roman Catholic; however, he pointed out the fundamental clash in human nature was between our biological nature and the seeming Godlike “I” or person we experience. One destined to deteriorate and die and the other ? In Kierkegaard’s thinking, avoiding the “dread of death” was the primary conflict man faced. His solution was theological even though his approach was psychological. It did include “natural law.”

61 posted on 11/04/2007 7:23:32 AM PST by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: shrinkermd
The extraordinary capacity of human beings to rationalize evil enables us to gratify ourselves but it does not render evil good.

The fact that millions of women rationalize the killing of their unborn babies does not render evil good, Whether a thing is evil or good is not a matter to be established by majority vote. Even Whether a thing shall be legal or illegal is not always a matter to be established by majority vote. That is why matters of conscience are constitutionally protected against majority rule.

Matters of individual conscience are protected from majority rule because the human capacity to rationalize evil on a wholesale scale is so dangerous. Slavers did not regard Africans as moral human beings . That was the majority opinion in America for centuries and the majority opinion in the American South well into the 19th century. This opinion rationalized the enslavement of millions of Africans in America. Nazis did not regard Jews as moral human beings. This was the majority opinion of Germany. This opinion rationalized the murder of millions of Jews.

Today, millions of women do not regard their unborn babies as moral human beings.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

New Testament or Old, my Bible (the King James version, of course, here quoting Jeremiah) makes clear the fallen nature of man and his infinite capacity to call evil, good and good evil, in order to rationalize his gratification. I have commented sometime ago on any Dennis Prager article the thrust of which is that the most important determinative of one's politics-whether left or right- is one's view of the nature of man, whether he is fallen or perfectible, whether he is essentially good or evil. Liberals think that man is good or at least perfectible with proper training which they are all too willing to provide. Conservatives believe that man is a fallen creature who cannot be educated to virtue but must be reborn, re-created as it were, to a whole new moral perspective.

If one regards man as essentially good (or in this case since were talking about pregnancy, woman) then, in the worldview of the liberal, the decisions of millions of good women about how to regard their unborn babies is very persuasive, indeed conclusive. Surely, 40 million women since Roe vs Wade could not have done an evil thing! A Christian, especially a conservative Christian has no difficulty in emphatically identifying 40 million evil acts. To the conservative Christian this morality is not to be determined by mob rule.

A final word about the kind of women who advance so ardently the rationalizations for 40 million abortions. How do they see the world? I believe they see the world as wholly out of balance and in need of reshaping so that moral justice can prevail. There are many impediments frustrating their ambitions to shape the world. Since we are talking about women, it is not surprising that they regard the traditional role of women as a huge stumbling block to their ambitions which all are global-remember, they want to shape the world. Justice Ginsburg, not surprisingly, has come out and flatly said so on her last dissenting opinion in the abortion case which she lost. I was not alone in regarding her dissent which was read aloud by her from the bench in a rare display by a justice of such pique, to be an articulation of the need to employ abortion as a means to reshape the role of women, to recast her relative power vis-à-vis men. Women like Justice Ginsburg simply believe that women must be able to abort their pregnancies in order to advance their careers and their social lives. You can see my vanity post asserting just this charge here:Ruthie "Remidies" is Preganant! A different view of Gonzolas v. Carhart;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821509/posts) Others insinuate that women who choose marriage as a career path want to be allowed to attempt to entrap a man with pregnancy and then abort if he fails to marry her. Such women are not ignorant of the methods of birth control but deliberately eschew them in order to get pregnant. How many abortions occur under this Faustian scenario?

If the soul sickness of man seduces him into a compact with evil, the fact that he repeats his sin an infinite number of times does not make evil good. It does not justify him in committing the sin an infinite number of times plus one.

Politicians are no less sinners than the rest of us and, if anything, they have an even greater capacity to rationalize evil for their own gain. If millions of women are committing abortions, that is not a justification for abortion. If a politician who is perhaps not very bright but is undoubtedly smart enough to count, figures out that enforcing a law against millions of women would be politically disastrous, he will rationalize the course which guarantees his own political survival. The failure of this politician to confront evil no more justifies abortion than does the reality that millions of abortions occur.


98 posted on 11/04/2007 12:51:39 PM PST by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson