I and my wife and our number of our friends have argued against abortion using a number of different reasons. These included the fact that the first femminists were pretty much totally against abortion because it was the men who were forcing them to have them and it is bad business practice for companies like GE to support killing future customers and employees. We have been doing this for over twenty years now. While your reasoning is correct about arguing the logic of abortion I think you may be a bit of newcomer to the war. In the end, after all the arguments are made we have found that it comes down to an individual's morality. More specifically whether or not do they believe in absolute or relative morality. As a present student of a Public School you should know full that Relative Morality is the rule of the day. Good luck with your battle, but we have found that it is better to try and open people up to the concept of Black and White versus Gray.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Ahhhhh
Law: morality that is dictated, legislated, negotiated or handed down by an Almighty God carried by tradition or statute enforced by magistrates, clerics, officers, citizens and even tyrants, God forbid, are what binds people together and protects the innocent from inhumane behavior.
Maybe you can succeed where others have failed.
God bless.
Don't forget all 100 of us atheist pro-lifers.
Pro-life. Pro-lifer. Pro-life in America. These words are not in the dictionary, so what do they mean? Most people think they define a group of political operatives who also shout from the rooftops "I am a Conservative Christian Republican!" Most people would be wrong.
This is partly due to the fact that a considerable number of conservative Christian Republicans are pro-life.
True enough, a considerable number of conservative Christian Republicans are, in fact, pro-life.
It’s hardly true, however, to say that they are the only pro-life people in America. Surprisingly enough to some, there are many different divisions within the pro-life movement, including Democrats, gays, lesbians, feminists, and environmentalists. It is not a one-party or one-group or one-religion issue.
Equally true, however, is the fact a surprising number of other political philosophies also consider themselves pro-life as well.
The pro-life movement is diverse with many divisions that include Democrats, gays, Lesbians,Feminists and Environmentalists. It is not a one party,one-group or one religion issue.
Thought you might be interested in a sample "Strunk and White" translation. Note I have merely rewritten some of your lead paragraphs. Remember, if you make assertions you may be required to produce, for example, a lesbian pro-life advocate as proof of the truth of your assertion.
Best regards,
Ask yourself if you can envision scenarios where, logically speaking, it would be advantageous to kill innocent human life.
Then ask yourself if it would be moral to do so.
Computers work well with logic, human beings have an emotional component. To ignore that is to fight with one hand tied behind your back.
It seems that the mainstream religious pro-life movement is not so clear when it comes to reasons not to have an abortion beyond the basic arguments that it’s a sin and you’ll go straight to hell.
I have been a part of the pro-life movement for half my life now. In that time I have I have never once witnessed anyone using this argument to convince women to avoid abortion or to convince the electorate to vote against it, much less use it as their primary line of argument. Not one person or message; not a single ad, editorial, speaker, politician, crisis pregancy volunteer, minister, or clinic protestor. I have not even heard this stuff from the sort of clinic protestors who stand in front of clinics with immense, grotesque photos of aborted fetuses. Never mind that the "go straight to hell" part of the argument is blatantly inconsistent with the Christian doctrine that you claim binds us to this argument.
I'm afraid that you have been suckered by the distorted image of the movement portrayed by the media of the Left as a bunch of sermonizing busybodies who have no interest in logical argument. Nothing is further from the truth.
There they go again ... fabricating extremely ridiculous sterotypes of Christians who abhor abortion while trying to suggest that gays are "moral" and might agree with them. LOL! Gays are immoral. If they happen to get the abortion issue right (por life advocates) that's not by design but a coincidence.
Must be my ADHD kicking in, the first couple of lines caught my eye and sent me down a slightly different sidetrack...
Making claim to being pro-life in America is like shouting, “I’m a conservative Christian Republican!” from your rooftop. This is partly due to the fact that a considerable number of conservative Christian Republicans are pro-life. It’s hardly true, however, to say that they are the only pro-life people in America.
Some days reading FR, you'd think that the three words "conservative Christian Republican" were inextricably tied together - and in the minds of some, they are. The question I'd have - and you might be able to use this as fodder for an article one day in the future - can one be conservative without being a Christian or a Republican? Can one be a Christian without being a Republican or even conservative? And so on....
I have my own ideas as to the answers to these questions, and I know there are those on the board whose opinions differ from mine. I think a discussion of this one day could be spirited and informative - if it didn't become mean-spirited and nasty!
Have a good day!
Plato's Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible.
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If a person believes in a God, it is the conviction of the Holy Ghost by which they are guided and not by the idolatrous vanities of morals constructed by others.
Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analogous to Plato's cave allegory and the Oracle of Delphi. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.
There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs.
Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).
The visual aspect of that phenomenon is also used by the print media to a degree. Interactive talk radio requires thought; television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers...
They worship for gods 'those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream...'
Like the necromancy of the late Senator Wellstone's funeral rally, or "funerally" (see the Steven Plaut article, The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism, in reference to the Wellstone brand of Judaism), the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship. This was also done with respect to Diana, Princess of Wales, following her "tragic" death in 1997.
Consider the seemingly coincidental circumstance that Diana is also the name of a pagan Greek goddess, and idolatry. The figurative deification of Princess Diana and the massive outpouring of public grief are a form of civil worship. The heaping of flowers at Kensington Palace as if it were a shrine, melodramatic eulogizing and the political expressions of how the world should comply with her posthumous intent concerning certain issues is a modern use of idolatry. Royalty magazine, in a special edition, had a large drop quote spanning across two pages: "She needed no royal title…to generate her particular brand of magic." The whole magazine was dedicated to pet Leftist political causes mixed in with the pictures and soliloquy about her sainthood.
This idolatry also partly played into the modern conflict of pagan vs. Judaic concerning her billionaire playboy lover, Dodi Al Fayed. Although many consider Islamic belief to be of Judaic origin, it is pagan. The crescent symbolizing Islam was also used to symbolize the pagan goddesses (Diana, Isis, etc.) and is used by modern neo-pagan nut cases as an icon. The use of the bedrock at the Dome of the Rock and the meteorite at the Kaaba as an excuse to label it an Islamic holy site, is idolatry. This is contrary to the idea that Muslim faith is monotheistic.
There is a clear connection between modern neo-paganism and ancient paganism related to Islamic conflict with the Judaic roots of Christendom. A focus on how this is manifested in a modern sense only requires a look at pop-culture icons in entertainment, sports "heroes," and attempts by the Left to use a pseudo-Christian sense of pagan moralistic idolatry to demonize political opposition. (I present to you U.S. Senator Rick Santorum as a useful example.)
Astrology is another blatant example of pagan idolatry. What else is it? The planets have the names of pagan gods. The constellations are grouped as phantastical images of mythical legends. The astrologers are revered as prophets by psychotic, neurotic adherents in frequent fanatical devotion to any musings these charlatans utter. The proliferation of psychics, seers, soothsayers, healers, gurus, etc., etc., ad nauseum, is a social psychosis, an occulted (or masked) promotion of Leftist propaganda (see the Paglia lecture at Yale, Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s).
Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union, the use of Princess Diana, Martin Luther King Jr. and others.
It is the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler, whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race." In effect, this genocide was a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols.
The idolatry of perversion is another totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion. Pornography is an idolatry of perversion. Much of television, movies, and the literary culture of the Leftist elite in print, are nothing more than a cleverly masked promotion of their Marxist cult (that is to say, masked much like actors of ancient Greek drama).
The Left is properly identified with a 'confederacy of deceivers (and perverts) that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavor, by obscure and erroneous doctrines.'
The Left is obsessed with erecting idols, images and symbols to hide their agenda(s), as well as to expand their congregation in these cults of perversion...
Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]
Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.
To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...
To bolster some of my assertions:
What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
The issue of polygamy is an Achilles' heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.
Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.
The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.
In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...
The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.
The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.
Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.]
One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.
This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered. The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.
An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony. Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils (yet another example of religious ceremony) for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child?
Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." The idolatry of "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.
But since we are all properly obeying the modern interpretation of the First Amendment… Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right wrong, evil, moral; all of these are purely religious concepts. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.
The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong.
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. But, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
I would instead argue that pro-lifers appeal to a broader morality. It is futile quoting Bible verses to non-Bible-believers. But most people generally agree that it's bad to kill innocent people -- a MORAL, not logical, position. So we should start from there. Show, using biological fact, that abortion is killing an innocent human being.