Thursday, March 29, 2012

If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for his rights?

Thus reads a new meme that is both pro-abortion and usually leftist in its origin and presuppositions. It can be seen on T-shirts, Facebook statuses, tweets, and signs held up at anti-Personhood rallies.

Note, by the way, that I have made the title of this post read "his rights" rather than "its rights" (or "it's rights", as in the below sign). Preborn children have definitive gender from very early on in their development and should not be referred to in the neuter, as if they were nothing more than a table, a weed, or a clump of cells.

The short answer to this question is:

Yes, we will still fight for the equal protection of the human rights of a human being at whatever stage of his/her life and development, no matter the opposition to the respecting of those human rights, no matter the behavior and preferences of that person or the behavior and preferences we believe we foresee.

Now for the more extended analysis of the question and explanation of our answer.

We have discussed the issue of human rights at length here already, and so I must insist that anyone looking for detailed explanation first read through what has been said before.

With that as a foundation, let us ask: To what rights are these questions referring?

The challenger is trying to impale the abolitionist on the horns of a dilemma, since the abolitionist also has a commitment to the ethics of Jesus Christ. In fact, Jesus' ethics are the very foundation and reason for which we do what we do in standing up for the right of the preborn child not to be murdered in his mother's womb.

Yet those very same ethics clearly mandate the moral reprehensibility of homosexual behavior and the moral uprightness of monogamous, committed heterosexual marriage. So if one is to be consistently Jesus-centric in one's ethics, one has to affirm both the preborn child's right not to be murdered in the womb and Jesus' definition of marriage.


The dilemma comes to light when:
  1. the interlocutor suggests that the preborn child is born with an innate homosexual orientation, much like one is born with a certain ethnicity, hair color, and gender. 
  2. the interlocutor imports into the conversation the idea that marriage is a right, and as such should be extended to any two persons, regardless of gender.
So, in response to #1:
  1. There is no scientific consensus over whether a "gay gene" exists that controls one's sexual orientation, despite many homosexual activists' claims that such does exist.
  2. Even if a "gay gene" does exist, this makes absolutely no difference to the moral justifiability of actually engaging in homosexual behavior. We are all born into sin and some temptations seem more attractive to us than others.
    If I have a hot temper and someone makes me really angry, does that justify my violating someone else's rights in murdering them?
    If I have a predilection toward alcoholism such that I am much more easily addicted than someone else, am I not guilty if I indeed become an alcoholic?
    If I have an innate lust for power and for sex, am I justified in raping a woman?

    The answer is, of course, no. The answer is: Let us repent of our sin, all our sin, and ask Jesus to transform us.
    Yes, it is unpleasant, especially when the sin is so closely cherished, but we have to realise that sin is an enemy and wants to destroy us, and we are slaves to it unless freed by Jesus.

    Romans 6:16-19:
    Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in   righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

    In other words, just because you think you were born that way, or even just because you were born that way, has nothing to do with the justifiability of your actions. That is a separate question.

  3. Consider carefully whether this parallel is a good idea to make. Human history is full of large-scale atrocities and tensions between people based on their ethnic differences. These persecutions were between people groups based on violent intolerance of their ontology, their essence.
    Homosexuality is characterised by behavior.
    So let's bring this back to the dilemma. One can be "oriented" toward a certain action, but does that automatically give someone the right to carry out that action?
    No, it does not.

  4. About behavior - we believe that since all humans are made in the image of God they have the ability to choose in a given situation whether they will engage in a certain behavior. Thus, a person undergoing a temptation to perform a homosexual act is not an automaton, a robot that is controlled by his desires. Just because one desires to do something, that does not mean s/he has no choice in the matter. To deny this leads to all sorts of absurdities. The entire field of psychology and criminal justice would be completely divested of any meaning, for it would negate all notions of responsibility and ability to change.
    Thus we abolitionists hold homosexuals in higher regard than those who would implicitly deny that they have the ability not to robotically do whatever their glands tell them to. 

Friday, March 23, 2012

Don't you trust women to make the right decision for themselves on their own?

Abolitionists are frequently challenged not to interfere with a "woman's right to choose" abortion on the basis of a perceived lack of trust in women's ability to make the right decision. We have several responses:

1) Many women do make the right decision, and we thank God for that.
Many make the wrong one, too, and we pray we can prevent that in the future.

2) Why have laws against rape? Don't you trust men to make the right decision for themselves on their own?
Why have laws against new mothers drowning their 1-month old children? Don't you trust women to make the right decision for themselves on their own?

In other words, no, we don't trust any sinful human being to make the right decision without guidance and authoritative, true laws to let us know what is right and wrong. Abortion is wrong; we should tell people it is wrong. Similarly, rape is wrong; we should tell people it is wrong.
This is why the argument must be theological. If we are adrift in this life and world without any communication from our Creator, we have nothing to go on. We make it up as we go. We have no guidance, no light.

3) Given that American women consistently poll majority pro-life, could we not ask you the same question? Maybe they know something you don't.

4) The number of women who bitterly mourn their aborted children over the course of decades is high, and testimonies thereof are easy to find. These women, with the benefit of hindsight, will tell you they made the wrong decision. Their lives and grief testify to the bad foundations of this challenge.

5) The objection is disingenuous. The pro-abort decries a perceived lack of education about abortion and contraception among Americans. S/he also fights against mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds and discussions about what the baby actually is at that age (ie, that the baby is not merely a clump of cells).
Yet women make the wrong decision all the time. 54 million times in the USA alone, to be more nearly exact.
How can we trust women to make the right decision when those who are asking us the question routinely fight against legislation that would protect women from predatory business practices in abortion offices? That would mandate that those who stand to profit from women's crisis pregnancies educate the women fully on all the implications of the action before proceeding? Is it consent they want, or is it informed consent?

6) Apparently pro-aborts don't "trust women" either, since another common and mutually-exclusive objection is that this decision should be left between a woman and her physician.
So which is it?

7) This challenge is irrelevant to the central question in the debate. If the preborn child is a human being, then that human being must be protected, for he has the right to life. If the preborn child is not a human being, then why are we even asking the question?
Don't you trust women to make the right decision for themselves about whether to remove their wisdom teeth? Or have an appendectomy? Or a tonsillectomy?
Of course - nobody cares about that.

The thing is, deep down everyone knows that this is a preborn human child. People want to hedge their bets and try to act appropriately sober about "this difficult decision", but it's really not difficult, at all.
Either the child must have full protection of law, or it's not a child and we need have no pangs of conscience. It's really that simple.


(Please leave any comments at the Abolitionist Society blog.)

Friday, March 16, 2012

An answer to an angry troll

Dropping in on a fairly old post, this angry troll said:


Chase200mph said...


LMAO! So justifications and apologies for murder, rape and selling your disobedient children as sex slaves is both just and moral….because god works in mysterious ways….right? This proves evil bible wrong? Personally I would go out and get yourself a GED before blogging such nonsense. The bible is an evil book, written by evil men who claimed the word belongs to some god that has failed to place even one piece of evidence on this planet as to his existence….and subsequently, whose followers have murdered over 50 million in his name… yup, how silly of anyone believing the bible is evil…..it makes 1127 references of whom to hate and murder, 110 of love. Grow up already!


justifications and apologies for murder, rape and selling your disobedient children as sex slaves is both just and moral….because god works in mysterious ways….right?

1) Where did I ever say anything like "it's justified b/c God works in mysterious ways"?
2) It's impossible for God to commit murder.
3) God has never commanded anyone to rape.
4) God has also never commanded anyone to sell one's disobedient children as sex slaves. Where are you getting this stuff? This entire statement was totally, 100% incorrect.


The bible is an evil book

1) What is your argument?
2) How do you know what "evil" is?


written by evil men

On that there is no argument. All men are evil. Men wrote the Bible (carried along by the Holy Spirit).
Therefore, the Bible was written by evil men. This is correct.
Not only by evil men; also by God.



who claimed the word belongs to some god that has failed to place even one piece of evidence on this planet as to his existence

Not at all; there's plenty of evidence.


subsequently, whose followers have murdered over 50 million in his name

1) Is that an evil thing to do?
2) How do you know what "evil" is?
3) If I murder in your name, are you necessarily responsible for it?
4) 50 million seems awfully high. How are you counting?
5) The Bible is clear that unrepentant murderers will not inherit the kingdom of God. It is consistent with my worldview to rule out any such notion that an unrepentant murdering follower of Jesus could exist.


it makes 1127 references of whom to hate and murder, 110 of love

1) What in the world does this even mean?
2) Since a great deal of the Bible discusses human history, and sinful humans generally prefer to treat each other with hate and murder rather than love, why would this surprise anyone? Are you unfamiliar with the biblical doctrine of human depravity?
3) A much more relevant count would be how many commands God gives to hate and murder (zero) versus how many times He commands us to love Him and neighbor (lots).

Thursday, March 08, 2012

When your idol is socialised healthcare

From here:

NOTHING LIKE PRO-CHOICE SEMANTICS!!!!......."Pamela, the problem with your point about pro-choicers can adopt too is that, pro-choicers aren't advocating for more unwanted children to be born. I often see the word "Advocate" attached to pro-choicers, which isn't really the case. We don't "Advocate" for adoptions or abortions, the only thing we advocate for is the right to make a choice."

So clearly Chris Fallon has exposed the reality that "choicers" only support "choice" in theory not in action. According to him once birth/and or adoption is "chosen" they wash their hands of the mothers and their babies born of those "choices" they say they support. He says they only support MAKING THE CHOICE not the results of the choices they support.
 ·  · 2 hours ago

  • 2 people like this.

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do And do you support free health care to children, nursing mothers, and pregnant women?

    • Angie Pasikowski Hanks Why even support anything then when they are not really helping? If it's just the choice they are concerned with then maybe they should pay more attention to the fact that abortion kills babies and care about educating people of the true facts so they make the RIGHT choice.
      about an hour ago ·  ·  2

    • Abolish Human Abortion By "free" do you mean "that taxpayers pay for thru being forced to pay high taxes to a bloated government that wastes most of its tax revenues"?
      about an hour ago ·  ·  3

    • Pamela Engle Are you saying it's only the governments responsibility idiotic and not yours as a choicer? You're all for big government?

    • Marron Price But an informed, educated choice is not welcome, don't you know. If these women were allowed an inform, educated choice the numbers of abortion would drop. A lot. Less abortions means less blood money in the pockets of PP and other 'clinics'.

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do Angie, free health care to pregnant women, nursing women, and children, has been proven to both reduce the amount of abortions and make the child and mother both healthier.
      And if either of you really did care about those children you would care that they recieve good medical care from conception.


    • Abolish Human Abortion By "free" do you mean "that taxpayers pay for thru being forced to pay high taxes to a bloated government that wastes most of its tax revenues"?
      about an hour ago ·  ·  1

    • Abolish Human Abortion ‎--"if either of you really did care about those children you would care that they recieve good medical care from conception."--

      Maybe that's far beyond our capabilities and we have to trust God on that. What's your argument to back up your contrived obligation you wish to impose on us?


    • Marron Price Who says we don't? Where ever did you get that?

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do My argument is that socialized medicine has been proven to reduce abortions because the mother does not need to worry about paying for medical care, it makes for a healthier pregnancy, it lessens the maternal death rate, children are healthier, and their mothers are healthier. Would you not want the children to be healthier?
      Look at all the first world nations and ask yourself why the US has more children borne with birth defects, why the US has more abortions as opposed to other first world countries where abortion is legal and there is socialized medicine, why the US has more women dying from pregnancy related complication, why the US has a higher infant mortality rate, etc. Why?
      If you want a woman to keep an unwanted pregnancy as opposed to aborting it make it as easy as possible and as less financially burdening as possible.


    • Abolish Human Abortion ‎--"My argument is that socialized medicine has been proven to reduce abortions because the mother does not need to worry about paying for medical care"--

      It's just that it wrecks the economy and reduces everyone to a medium low icky standard of living. Yeah, great.
      Makes it so no one has any disposable income for stuff like computers and charitable donations.
      And we all get to stand in line for bread, and meat once a month. Joy. Except for the oligarchy, of which Idiotic is no doubt a member.

      --"why the US has more children borne with birth defects"--

      Prolly lots of reasons. Doubt it's ONLY because the US doesn't have socialised medicine. You need an argument.


    • Abolish Human Abortion ‎--" why the US has more abortions as opposed to other first world countries where abortion is legal and there is socialized medicine"--

      Prolly lots of reasons. Doubt it's ONLY because the US doesn't have socialised medicine. You need an argument.


    • Abolish Human Abortion ANSWER THE QUESTION: By "free" do you mean "that taxpayers pay for thru being forced to pay high taxes to a bloated government that wastes most of its tax revenues"?
      59 minutes ago ·  ·  1

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do Name ONE country where socialized medicine has ruined a country. ONE. And it has to be proven that socialized medicine is the main cause

    • Abolish Human Abortion ‎--"And it has to be proven that socialized medicine is the main cause"--

      First you need to give us a reason to think you've made a proper connection between the claims you've made above and socialised medicine. Good luck. It's pretty complex, which is why I refrain from making specific claims like you have.

      57 minutes ago ·  ·  1

    • Marron Price Speaking for myself, I have no problem handing over my money to help with the health and wellfare of women and children, but I do have a problem with paying for women to kill their children. I will not pay for that, nor will I pay for their sex lives. They can buy their own pills and condoms.
      55 minutes ago ·  ·  1

    • Pamela Engle Where do you get that socialized medicine is "FREE"? Please enlighten me!
      55 minutes ago ·  ·  1

    • Marron Price It is most definitely not free, and is only for those deemed worthy.
      52 minutes ago ·  ·  1

    • Abolish Human Abortion It's free if you're in the ruling class, the Communist Party. La noblesse.
      51 minutes ago ·  ·  2

    • Pamela Engle Yes that's why congress would not open their insurance plan with others. ELITISTS
      50 minutes ago ·  ·  2

    • Marron Price The system we have today, tho not perfect, is still far better and reaches(helps) more people them socialized medicine ever would.
      48 minutes ago · 

    • Abolish Human Abortion If the country had more Christians in it, it would be far better, as more people would contribute far more to charitable causes, and those causes would be less corrupt overall, less wasteful.
      47 minutes ago ·  ·  2

    • Marron Price Amen to that.
      46 minutes ago · 

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do 
      http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=710 under Mortality and Burden of Disease you will find the category for Life Expectancy, and under that Life Expectancy, click that for life expectancy data. For maternal death rates click on Equity and under Women and Health you will find the Maternal Mortality Ratio. Also under Equity you will find Urban Health, click that, go down to Health Outcomes and then click on Infant Mortality for the infant mortality data.
      So there, you have the life expectancy data, the maternal death data, and the infant mortality rate.


      apps.who.int
      The World Health Organization

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do And the USSR was not felled by socialized medicine.

    • Abolish Human Abortion It wasn't felled by any one cause, so your question was a bad one. So, my question, please?
      43 minutes ago · 

    • Pamela Engle Again, how is socialized medicine FREE?
      41 minutes ago · 

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do I answered it with data from the WHO. I even gave you detailed step by step instructions on how to find the various data on the site.

    • Abolish Human Abortion By "free" do you mean "that taxpayers pay for thru being forced to pay high taxes to a bloated government that wastes most of its tax revenues"?
      39 minutes ago · 

    • Abolish Human Abortion Also, you didn't make the connections I requested. YOu merely proved that the stats are as you stated them. I didn't object to the stats, so...
      38 minutes ago · 

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do You do not have to pay for it upfront but by paying taxes. Thus you do not have to pay to see a doctor, or a specialist, or for a medical procedure from your own pocket.

    • Abolish Human Abortion So it's not free.
      So your answer to my question is: Yes.
      Right?

      37 minutes ago ·  ·  1

    • Abolish Human Abortion And yes, you DO have to pay from your own pocket. Taxes come out of your pocket.

      Socialism makes you stupid. Wow. Did you go to government school?

      37 minutes ago · 

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do If you look at the data country by country (I am sure you are intelligent enough to do so), you would see countries that have socialized medicine have a lower infant mortality rate, a lower rate of maternal deaths, and a higher life expectancy.

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do And yes I did. But considering I have the ability to interpret data and you do not... well...

    • Abolish Human Abortion If I "cannot" pay taxes, it's not free, is it? OTHER PEOPLE pay for it instead. Right?
      33 minutes ago · 

    • Abolish Human Abortion ‎--"you would see countries that have socialized medicine have a lower infant mortality rate, a lower rate of maternal deaths, and a higher life expectancy."--

      And your argument that you're not affirming the consequent is...?

      33 minutes ago · 

    • Pamela Engle And does that FREE service get paid for by money picked off of trees? How are those services paid for?
      32 minutes ago ·  ·  1

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do 
      Through a progressive tax system and by government transfers to the provinces. And no, there are no death panels.
      I am saying the consequence of socialized medicine is a healthier population which includes healthier children.
      If you care soo much about creating government regulation to keep them 'safe' in the womb then why not create a government health care system for those same children when they are borne? Or are you just for government intervention when the fetus is in the uterus?


    • Abolish Human Abortion They're paid for by the great unwashed masses, so that you work and get very little return for it. La noblesse gets a lot of the good stuff, and those who don't work get the same as you, the worker, get.
      24 minutes ago ·  ·  1


    • Abolish Human Abortion A lot of waiting in line for bread.
      22 minutes ago · 

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do I live in Canada and I do not see long lines anywhere for bread

    • Pamela Engle Progressive tax is money that comes from where?
      22 minutes ago · 

    • Abolish Human Abortion Idiotic is really really hoping we all only look at highly industrialised and sparsely populated countries like Sweden for her idealistic exemplars and not the USSR (much more comparable to the USA) or Vietnam. I wonder why that is...
      21 minutes ago · 

    • Abolish Human Abortion Canada doesn't have any people in it. The USA has about 10X as many people and 10X as many illegal immigrants if not more.
      21 minutes ago · 

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do But I do see mothers not having to worry about health care for their premature babies. I see cancer patents not having to worry about affording their chemo. I see pregnant women who don't have to worry about paying for doctors appointments and for tests...

    • Abolish Human Abortion Good for you. I bet we all wish we could live in Canada. Of course, if we did, it WOULD have long lines.
      20 minutes ago · 

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do Russia (the USSR no longer exists) and Vietnam are not first world countries.
      And Pamela, a progressive tax system is where people pay taxes based on the percentage of income they make. And if you fall below a certain line you do not have to pay taxes.


    • Abolish Human Abortion The others pay them for you. Don't worry, you don't have to work. Let Big Brother State take care of you.
      17 minutes ago · 

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do Again. If you are all for government regulation protecting fetuses in wombs, are you not for protecting the health of that same fetus when it is borne?

    • Abolish Human Abortion Alright, it's clear Idiotic is a fall-in-line socialist, goose-stepping with the rest. She'd rather make you pay for other people at the point of a bayonet (while she of course enjoys fine beluga caviar and vodka) than ask you to help others out of your love for God.
      No different than the yahoos that produced 0bama. I'm out.

      16 minutes ago · 

    • Abolish Human Abortion ‎--" are you not for protecting the health of that same fetus when it is borne?"--

      You mean the LIFE? Yes, that's why I support NOT repealing murder laws. What a ridiculous question.

      15 minutes ago · 

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do And you are no different than the rest of the idiots who stand by and let someone die because they can not afford healthcare. Some pro-lifer you are.

    • Idiotic Things Republicans and Conservatives Say and/or Do And I know I will get banned for this. But I do not care because this conversation along with some others are already saved onto my computer...
      You are a fucking twat Rhology. And I hope someday a child of yours is a homosexual, and I hope that someday you find yourself sick and without insurance.


    • Abolish Human Abortion Yep, you're banned. Too bad; while you didn't have very good arguments, on balance they were better than most.

      Nice talking to you.

      8 minutes ago · 

    • Abolish Human Abortion 
      ‎--" let someone die because they can not afford healthcare"--



      ‎--" let someone die because they can not afford healthcare"--

      How do you know how I spend my money and where I give? You don't. Your biased judgmental attitude is unwarranted without more data, which you didn't have the decency to ask for.

      --"But I do not care because this conversation along with some others are already saved onto my computer..."--

      Good. Spread it far and wide.

      --" I hope someday a child of yours is a homosexual"--

      I'd rather my child be homosexual than be murdered in the womb, with my hand signing the dotted line saying "it's OK to kill this one".

      --" I hope that someday you find yourself sick and without insurance."--

      OK. Did you know there are other options than dead on the side of the road and communism? Do you really think that false dilemmas serve your position well? They don't make for very good arguments.

      6 minutes ago · 

    • Pamela Engle 
      Your personal attack is unfounded and based on pure ignorance. Again, where does the tax money that pays for these services come from? Hmmm? Why are you so afraid to answer the question. You have no idea what my stance is. I have a job. I'm...See More

      2 minutes ago · 

    • Pamela Engle Poorly run government programs in no way ensure lower death rates.

I was the Abolish Human Abortion admin on all those comments.