Posts tagged abortion
Faux-Darwinian Ethics

After concluding that the distinguishing attributes that bifurcate "non-human animals" and "animals" (humans) are ability to reason and capacity to suffer, Dawkins and Singer determine that there is more moral reprehensibility in terminating the life of a horse than a human fetus. Singer goes on to suggests that eating meat without thought to how the livestock is reared and slaughtered is akin to Germans turning their heads as Jews were slaughtered in droves. Additionally, the gravitas for deciding whether one should eat meat should be to the same degree one decides to have an abortion. At which point, Dawkins concedes the moral high ground to Singer—as Dawkins confesses his taste for meat. As to whether a line should be drawn on grounds for ending life, both are agreed that an exact line cannot be set, and propose a continuum in its stead. Behold the Darwinian perspective—without regard to the less than sanguine thesis of Darwinian evolution, i.e., survival of the fittest—sans image of God, dominion over the earth, and an impetus for love of neighbor.

I will close with the words of the inimitable Chesterton:

Nobody has any business to use the word 'progress' unless he has a definite creed and a cast-iron code of morals... For progress by its very name indicates a direction; and the moment we are in the least doubtful about the direction, we become in the same degree doubtful about the progress. Never perhaps since the beginning of the world has there been an age that had less right to use the word “progress” than we. - G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 16.

QOTD: Peter Singer's Song of Death

From the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, Peter Singer aknowledges that once we can abandon “those doctrines about the sanctity of human life,” abortion, on the moral ground of utility, makes killing other humans not only viable but humane.

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that—as we saw in Chapter 4 —collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.

Peter Sanger, Practical Ethics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 175.

Think About It

Here are some interesting facts on three perspectives of the pro-choice position: The Racist is Pro-Choice

The beloved feminist pioneer, Margaret Sanger, is oft quoted, "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body." A less famous quote by the founder of Planned Parenthood is, "Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."

To ensure we are all on the same page, eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. If you’re wondering why this philosophy of controlled breeding sounds familiar, see Hitler in Nazi Germany. Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics: which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[1]

Here’s a fun fact: Did you know that Blacks and Latinos represent 25% of our population, but account for 59% of all abortions. Referring to this statistic, Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend.”  If you disagree, I would encourage you to try to find an abortion clinic in an affluent part of town.

The Misogynist is Pro-Choice:

Since 1971, China has aborted 336 million children, many of them forcibly.[2] Being that many Chinese families would prefer a son, China’s One Child Policy-a policy that Joe Biden applauded this past year on his trip to China- has increased the rate of abortion of females, thereby accelerating a demographic decline.

This misogynistic mindset is not simply a *them* mindset, but happens frequently here in the U.S. In May of 2012, a pro-life group called Live Action sent actors posing as pregnant women into Planned Parenthood clinics, asking a series of questions to elicit information on sex-selective abortions. If you’d like to see what they found, click here. On multiple occasions, the United States Congress has debated legislation that would outlaw the practice of sex-selective abortions. But the legislation ultimately failed to pass in the House of Representatives.

The Capitalist is Pro-Choice

This point it quite simple: Abortions cost money; spent money necessitates money gained. One might retort, most abortion clinics are non-profits. True, but government grants and funding to Planned Parenthood in the last reported year 2009-2010 was $487.4 million. Ironically, this not-for-profit organization gave $12 million to the campaign of their largest proponent, President Obama.[3] Never mind the fact that their CEO receives a salary of more than $400k a year.

It’s important to understand that while P.P. is granted non-profit status, abortions account for a majority of their profits. They parade the fact that abortions represent only 3% of services rendered. But they forget to mention that abortions generate 33% of their clinic's profits. If you would like to refute that the abortion industry is a Big Business, please see Kermit Gosnell: Philadelphia physician who made close to $1.8 million per year doing legal and late term abortions.

Don't even get me started on the political utilitarian ethic that deems it cheaper to kill a child than pay for its healthcare, food, childcare, education, etc.

While the media would like you to believe that the pro-choice position is the more sensible, progressive and tolerant one, I hope to have shown that there is a much darker side to this debate that is not likely to surface.

[1]. Porter, Nicole S.; Bothne Nancy; Leonard, Jason. Public Policy Issues Research Trends. Nova Science. 126. [2] http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=39913, Accessed June 27, 2013. [3] http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/25/planned-parenthood-has-spent-12-million-to-re-elect-obama/. Accessed June 27, 2013.

RE: So What if Abortion Ends Life?
16752

(credit: kristina o'brien via creationswap) While discussing same-sex marriage, I'm often told, "In twenty years, you'll look as bigoted as the white zealots that rioted during the desegregation of the Birmingham schools." That may be, only time will tell. But I wonder, what if Roe v. Wade is overturned? How will the pro-choice advocates be seen?

As science continues to make colossal advances, it becomes increasingly more and more obvious this "sack of cells" is a human child. [Enter Rhetoric] Yes, I agree, an acorn isn’t an oak tree, but this is a bad parallel. The human equivalent of this oft used false analogy would be: a sperm isn’t a baby. I don’t know anyone who disagrees with that.

If you want to bring plants into this, a more precise comparison would state: a growing sapling isn’t an oak tree. Begging the question, why not? Even still, this analogy means to distance the discourse away from a living, breathing, human being to a seemingly inanimate object. By engaging in this poor rhetoric, we begin comparing acorns and babies.

With 4D ultrasounds, and videos like this, it becomes near impossible to call a fetus merely potential life. It’s ironic that Christians, who ostensibly hate science, continually cite scientific studies as evidence of human life, while others resort to rhetoric.

Shockingly, some, like Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, freely concede that the ‘sack of cells’ in a womb is in fact a child, but still deny that it is wrong to take innocent human life.

“[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognize that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.”  Peter Singer, Rethinking Life and Death:The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics, 105.

But Singer is a man, and men don’t count when discussing issues of women’s health. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Fair enough. There are outspoken women, such as Mary Elizabeth Williams, who aren’t ashamed to admit that the life inside of them is a human. According to Williams’ logic, because the baby is not autonomous, it is the woman’s (host) choice if she should eliminate the child (parasite). She urges women not to be intimidated by “wing-nuts” who try to trick them into admitting that abortion is murder.

"Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice... All life is not equal...a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss." Read her article, ‘So what if an abortion ends a life?’

I think she is wrong on so many levels. But I think she is especially wrong when she suggests support for Roe v. Wade is at an all-time high. Williams must have missed the V.P. debate last year when Joe Biden warned our nation about letting a right-wing conservative get in office, “The next president will get 1 or 2 SCOTUS nominees. That’s how close overturning Roe v. Wade is.” I believe the tides are changing, and I’m not alone. And, God willing, when they do, what of the outspoken proponents of the pro-choice position? Will they weep for the 50+ million babies slaughtered in the U.S. alone? Will they be seen and charged as murderers? I can’t say. But what I can say is this: all (including me) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And God is faithful to forgive; even murderers. We need only repent.

“I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin" (Psalm 32:5).

Shame on You

I've seen far too many believers take (what they assume to be) a moral 'high road' by showing blatant disregard and outright slothfulness in ignoring or underplaying the significance of this election. while you may not be concerned with the amount of people out of work, please heed the words of V.P. Joe Biden when he warned the viewers of the V.P. debate, "The next president will get 1 or 2 SCOTUS nominees, that's how close overturning Roe v. Wade is." 50+ million babies in 39 years. do something about it, or don't...