Choose Wisely (Last Thoughts)

According to the Olympic Charter, at least as proclaimed by Google, the “practice of sport” is a human right.  That is to say, I suspect, that if you have enough leisure time to be bored, and you would rather do something sportive instead, no one should stop you.  I don’t want to belittle the suffering of anyone, but I’m not sure I’m aware of any widespread sport prohibitions.  Maybe they exist, but are hidden away.  Hidden atrocities exist.

Like abortion, but we’ll come back to that.

At the very least we have two things.  First is the affirmation of a belief in Human Rights at all.  I’m always happy to know that people support human rights; especially as most of them do so irrationally.  No religion but Christianity can support them.  (Atheism certainly can’t, as is becoming increasingly apparent.)  Non-Christians are clinging to a vestige. Perhaps that vestige will pull them back.  At the very least, it’s a vestige I would prefer they keep, because my children have to grow up in this world.

Second we have the foundation of one of my favorite sorts of argument: the a fortiori.  (Doesn’t everyone have a favorite sort of logical argument?)  In very broad terms, a fortiori arguments work like this: if we are willing to grant one thing, we ought to be even more willing to grant some other more obvious thing.  Thus:  “You know it’s wrong to slap your brother, so you shouldn’t hit him with a chair!”

(We will for the moment pretend I have never had to say that.)

So, if human beings have the right to participate in things like the two man luge, clearly they have other more obvious rights, like the right to live even if they are unwanted, even if they are unhealthy, even if they are inconvenient, and even if someone else’s life is made more difficult by their living.

(And see, we’re back to abortion.)

Talking about abortion as a right “to choose” or a right to “have bodily autonomy” is flagrant misrepresentation.  I don’t have the right to choose to kill someone else.  My rights over my body don’t give me the right to kill someone else’s body.

Abortion advocates mostly know this though, so they try to portray the fetus as being somehow less than a “someone else.”  Human rights are intended precisely to protect people from that sort of move.  We don’t get to say that someone else doesn’t count, we don’t get to say that someone else doesn’t deserve rights, we don’t get to set standards about whom we protect and whom we abuse.  Those standards are set for us, and set more strictly than is comfortable, precisely because we are all too comfortable with evil.

The last few posts I’ve tried to be objective and rational.  Today I’m just angry.  I would delete this all and try again, but that would be against the rules.

Not least of all, I’m angry about the level of exploitive rhetoric used by abortion proponents.  They throw around deliberately inflammatory terms like “forced birth” and “a woman’s right to her body,” so that people react emotionally and don’t notice the treachery.  They deliberately cloud the issue so that people won’t think about it.  So that people won’t think about abandoning those who cannot defend themselves.  Suddenly it’s not death, it’s liberty.  They trick us into thinking that maybe the human beings we abandon don’t actually matter.

God help us.  God help the ones we won’t help.  God give them peace and a home with a Father that won’t reject them and leave them in the clutches of a monster.

We ought to be willing to die to save them.  What have we become?

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Choose Wisely (Last Thoughts)

  1. There appears to be some confusion here. Nowhere in the bible does it outlaw abortion. In fact, if you actually read the bible you’d see that the Middle Eastern god Christians worship is quite definitively pro-abortion, personally and passionately performing many terminations and ordering countless more.

    In Hosea 9:11-16, the son of Beeri prays for his god to intervene in earthly affairs and wreak havoc on the unborn of an entire population. “Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts… Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” To paraphrase, Hosea pleads that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children, to which the Christian god dutifully obeys and makes all their unborn children miscarry. Now, terminating a pregnancy unnaturally is unmistakably what we today call an abortion.

    In Hosea 13:16 the Christian god is utterly diabolical as he dashes to “pieces” the infants of Samaria and orders “their pregnant women [to be] ripped open by swords.” This, self-evidently, describes mass abortions of such barbarity that it’s hard to even fathom.

    In Numbers 5:11-21 a bizarre and abusive ritual is described which is to be performed by a priest on any woman suspected of adultery; a ritual which results in an abortion. In the text a potion is mixed and the accused woman is brought before the priest who says, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband may the Lord cause you to become a curseamong your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.” As clear as day this is a definitive description of an induced abortion; an act where poison is forcibly given to ruin the foetus and rid a woman of another man’s child.

    In Numbers 31:17 Moses commands “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words, kill all women that are or could be pregnant, which is plainly abortion for the foetus.

    In 2 Kings 15:16 the Christian god again orders pregnant women to be “ripped open,” which is both abortionand homicide on a mass scale. “At that time Menahem destroyed the town of Tappuah and all the surrounding countryside as far as Tirzah, because its citizens refused to surrender. He killed the entire population and ripped open the pregnant women.”

    In total there are in fact twenty-six separate instances where this Middle Eastern god performs abortions on demand, conducts infanticide (the intentional killing of newborns), and murders toddlers en masse; acts recounted from 1 Samuel 15:3 to Isaiah 13:15-18 where this god not only smashes babies to death but also orders the rape of their mothers. In a word the Christian god is a heinous baby-killing, foetus-destroying monster, and as it turns out his son is also no friend of the unborn. In the Gospel of the Egyptians Jesus not only demands total abstinence but preaches for the outright separation of the sexes, stating that “sorrow” and what he repeatedly calls “error” will remain with man for just “As long as women bear children.” The statement is quite explicit: don’t ever get pregnant, and if you do then abortion is better than birth.

    I hope this helps.

    All the best

    • You clearly feel strongly about Christianity. In the future it might be more helpful to deal with those feelings than to write comments like this. You’re striking out in aggressive ignorance against something you clearly don’t understand, or about which you have a twisted understanding. It seems you are determined to twist things now to justify your anger. I hope you can find peace enough eventually to have your understanding untwisted. As always, if you want to talk to me or have me recommend someone who might be able to help you, you can contact me.

      • What makes you think I’m angry? I was merely pointing out that you have clearly not read your bible, for if you had you’d know the Middle Eastern god Christians worship is somewhat pro-abortion…. As I have clearly demonstrated.

        Me personally, I’m not pro-abortion, that’d be the equivalent of someone saying they’re pro-amputation, but I am certainly a defender of a woman’s right to make decisions concerning her own body. Out of interest, what makes you think you can interfere in that decision making process?

        • Well, first I should say that I have a post-graduate degree in Biblical studies. I can read the Bible in four languages. I have read it in four languages. Even more, I understand it, which is an important consideration.

          Also, if you want a discussion about abortion I would direct you to my comments on other posts, since I’ve answered you question. (Also importantly, I’ve addressed the rather egregious misunderstanding you’re promulgating, that the question is about the woman’s right to her body. In fact the question is about her right to the baby’s body.)

          • Post grad is “bible studies”…. And this makes you an expert on foetal development how, precisely?

            Now, it seems you’re trying to imply the foetus is alive and is a unique human being. This is fundamentally in error. Something cannot be considered “alive” until it can “die.” Human life, therefore, begins at the moment its twin, death, also springs into existence. Without death there is no defined life. The former begets the latter. The latter assigns meaning to the former. One delineates the other, and fortunately the definition of death is not in dispute. Death is when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. That’s it. That’s death. It follows quite naturally therefore that the onset of defined human life is when foetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular and sustained wave patterns, and that occurs consistently around week 25 of pregnancy. Only after something can die can it be considered alive, and to argue anything to the contrary is patently absurd.

            • It seems you have not read my posts. I have not claimed to be an expert in fetal development, nor would I, no do I need to be to make the claims I have made. (Merely an expert in philosophy and logic, which I am.) However, it’s decently important to note that your own position is fundamentally religious; it requires ontological dualism, which is a theological assumption, and certainly one that’s difficult to prove. Also and more importantly, your response is factually wrong. Scientifically, the zygote is alive according to every scientific definition, and of homo sapiens genetically and biologically. That is to say, scientifically, indisputably, according to experts on both sides, the fetus is alive and a unique human from conception. The debate is only on whether or not that human should be given the full rights of society, not whether it exists.

          • Even more, I understand it, which is an important consideration.

            Apparently you don’t understand the bible enough to mount a defense other than “you’re angry” when presented with facts contrary to your opinion from your magic book of choice.

            • It’s difficult to argue with nonsense. If a man is convinced that my neighbor’s truck is actually a cow, I can have no meaningful discussions about the truck. Sometimes the best response is to understand that some arguments are symptoms, and arguing cannot cure the problem of which they are symptomatic. I offered, such as they are, my credentials for saying that I am justified in calling the truck a truck.

Submit a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s