Islamists are anti abortion/pro-life as well.
Any singularity in reasoning inevitably leads to a conundrum. I will not sacrifice my country in order to be a ‘purist’ in the voting process
“Islamists are anti abortion/pro-life as well.”
Yeah, and Hitler was a non-smoking vegetarian.
Does that mean all non-smoking vegetarians are Nazis?
1) Islamists are not pro-life in the Christian sense at all. Indeed, part of the problem we have with them is precisely this disconnect over the sanctity of human life. Their most extreme practitioners deliberately engage in the practice of dehumanizing those they wish to kill, a practice that resonates precisely with treating an unborn child as a mere “fetus” or a “clump of cells.” I am a clump of cells, truth be told. But to the extreme Islamist, an infidel is not even human. The less-informed among them are taught from childhood that unbelievers are really shape-shifted pigs and monkeys. Literally. I kid you not. Therefore, you will please forgive me if I do not accept your premise.
2) There are no true singularities in reasoning, so I do not understand your statement. The sacredness of life is not a singularity, in that it requires an entire, preexisting system of thought to support it, notable ideas of which include the belief in a personal God who creates human life for divine purposes, imbues such life with special attributes of intellect and spirituality, for the purpose of engaging in a relationship with each other and with the Creator. Agree or disagree, the theological basis of the pro-life position is anything but a singularity. One may also attribute significant complexity to the non-theistic argument for the pro-life position, that somehow a better principle of survival emerges from treating society’s most defenseless members with dignity and respect. Thus, you even have atheists with whom we have common ground, who would assert that valuing human life as something special is absolutely vital to having a just system of laws. Where is this singularity of which you speak?
Ah, but perhaps you refer to the next level up, where I assert that a pro-life premise is necessary to a just legal system. Very well, it is true, I make the argument that without sanctity of life at the foundation, you can’t devise good law. Consider: Can I have a good car without wheels? But then have I made “wheels” a singularity, a single thing upon which another thing in it’s entirety depends? Not really. A car without wheels might serve well as a place to live. Or not. But if you want to actually use it to get somewhere, it had better have wheels.
Now consider the law. Answer me this: Why law? What is law supposed to do? Where is it supposed to take us? Does it exist just to support lawyers? To empower governments? No. The law has as its single focus the human person, protecting the rights and establishing the duties of persons toward each other. If the law fails to do that, it is like our car without wheels, suitable for some purposes but falling well short of its highest potential.
Therefore, if Scott Brown, or any other legislator, goes to build a system of law that does not protect the rights of some human persons to their own life, what can we expect from such legislators but abysmal failure in the effort to protect those other rights that flow directly from the right to live?
So I say to you, that if you really wanted to avoid sacrificing your country, you would protect what has made her so special these last two centuries, her openly declared recognition of the natural rights we all have to live, to be free, and to pursue happiness on our own terms. If we fail to protect our own babies from the acids and knives of the death merchants, what exactly is there left to save?
And...when Scott Brown takes Obamacare back to the drawing board, as he just promised, and helps pass a sociallized medicine bill...
What did you do?