The main problem with pro-abortion arguments of all kinds can be summarized in two simple questions. WHY is a human baby (born) a "human being", and a human fetus not a human being? WHY is infanticide a crime, if a baby is not really a "human being" (because no baby that was ever born can pass an INTELLIGENCE test for membership in the human race, being less intelligent than a chimpanzee?
See last week's entry entitled "Obama: Pro-Infanticide". That is the entry about Obama's votes in the Illinois legislature IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE (opposing a law requiring babies born alive to be kept alive, rather than murdered, if possible). Consider the example that regularly makes the news of a 17 year old girl killing and/or abandoning her baby right after it is born, which is a CRIME. However, when a hospital did it in Illinois, Obama BLOCKED the law to stop this infanticide of babies born alive (through induced labor where it was hoped they would NOT live) on three separate occasions. I have no doubt at all that Obama is WORSE than the teenage girl who abandons her baby in the trash--obviously partly because of emotional pressure and confusion (postpartum depression and hormone changes do exist), and partly because of Planned Parenthood and people like Obama. How do Obama, Planned Parenthood, and the pro-abortion people explain to that teenage girl that she is in trouble because she killed a baby, even though that Illinois hospital routinely discarded babies born alive to die, and even though the fetuses killed by Planned Parenthood, with Obama's enthusiastic support, are often MORE developed than the baby that may be discarded by some teenage girl after birth. They can't explain it, and don't try to (because there is no logic to their position, except the monstrous one I describe below. Before getting to how Obama's answer to Pastor Warren's question on Saturday fit right into the radical left position on abortion, consistent with those votes in the Illinois legislature, let us firs consider how Obama again LIED about those votes in the Illinois legislature (as Obama routinely lies about multiple things he has said and done, with the COVERING ACCPETANCE of a mainstream media upon which Obama is relying to get away with these lies).
The Obama lie was that the Illinois legislation he OPPOSED was not the same as the similar Federal legislation (whichpassed 98 to 0, before Obama reached the Senate, meaning Obama has a record of being more radical on abortion than EVERY United States Senator serving before Obama got to the Senate). Obama has now admitted that he lied, and that the Illinois legislation he opposed ended up being substantially identical to the Federal legislation that ll reasonable people (not Planned Parenthood, in other words) supported. Obama did not admit his initial "explanation" was false because he wanted to, or because the mainstream media relly developed the information. Rather, the people, including a hospital nurse who testified before Obma in support of the Illinois legislation, surfaced and just made it impossible for Obama to maintain the lie. So Obama invented another lie. The next "explanation" was that Obama opposed the legislation because it threatened to "undermine" the existing Illinois laws allowing abortion.
This is yet another case (of many) where the Obama "explanation merely compounds the problem. It turns out that the Illinois law eventually contained a provision that specifically said that the legislation would have no effect on abortion laws, but only applied to babies born alive. Obama still opposed the legislation. What Obama is really saying is that he bought into the RADICAL position of fanatic Planned Parenthood types that ALL legislation that could be considered as suggesting that abortion can EVER be a bad thing is bad, because it encourages abortion opponents to seek more limitations (the "camel's nose under the tent" argument). In other words, abortion is so sacred a thing that even the moral monstrosities to which it leads must be accepted, for fear that anyone might get the idea that abortion can be a bad thing. Then there is the Obama implication that ALL abortion must be allowed, including partial birth abortion. There is no way, of course, to distinguish partial birth abortion (where the baby is killed as it is being born. Has any pro-abortion person ever explained what mystical thing happens when the umbilical cord is cut to create a human being, when the instant before there was no human being? Of course not, because there is NO scientific or religious logic to the idea that a human fetus of equal or greater (say ninth month fetus disstinguished from an eighth month premature baby) is not the same creature as a baby at that same sageof development.
This leads us to Pastor Rick Warren's question on Saturday, and Obama's moral monstrosity of an answer--a moral monstrosity even though it is the accepted position of fanatic, pro-abortion leftists). Obama was asked (as was McCain) at what point a baby/fetus is a human being. Note Obama's problem here. He has a RECORD of supporting unlimited abortion to the moment of birth, and even supporting infanticide. So he fell back on the leftist default position designed to deceive. Obama said that it was "outside his pay grade" to determine when human life began, and essentially tried to evade the question by saying he did not know. McCain, of course, simply said that human life begins at conception (the only logical position, since from that point forward there is a continuum of development where there is NO point--certainly not birth--where you can cut the line and say a human being existed).
WHY is infanticide a crime, if we don't know when a human being comes into existence? That is the question, isn't it, and the problem with this leftist, pro-abortion DODGE. If we don't know that a baby, which is the same creature as the fetus that existed a nanosecond before, is a human being, WHY do we prohibit infanticide while allowing the killing of that same creature the moment before birth? There is no way to answer that question, if you are pro-abortion, except one monstrous one.
Obama says that "religion and science don't know" when human life begins. That is a standard leftist dodge in itself, and it is simply not true. To throw religion into it is, of course, absurd. Do we KNOW that WASPS (while Anglo Saxon Protestants) have a soul? Do we KNOW a baby has a soul? WHY is infanticide a crime? Do we KNOW that God does not breathe a soul into a child at age 10 (see below)? Of course we don't. Do we KNOW that African-Americans have a soul? Do we KNOW that Native Americans have a soul? All of his is something we cannot KNOW, and there has been disagreement over it at times in history (whether "savage" Indians, for example, or slaves, were truly human beings on the same level as the rest of us). We can ignore the injection of religion as a red herring, and an evil one at that. Nope. it does not matter that the religion of some people may cause them to believe abortion the equivalent of infanticide. So what. If you believe the Christian religion at all, God is the SOURCE of all morality, including "thou shalt not kill". Does it make any sense to say that we should not have laws against murder because they are based in religion? Don't be silly, even if pro-abortion people are more silly than that every time they open their mouths.
Science knows everything we need to know in this area. There is nothing VAGUE or UNKNOWN. To say that science does not know when a soul comes into existence just gets you back to the ridiculous "argument (not an '"argument" at all, in this context, but a DODGE) of when a soul comes into existence. Science knows that the genetic makeup of EVERY human being is the same at conception as at death--a different and distinct genetic makeup from the parents that is true at conception (disregarding human cloning, which has not yet occurred). Science knows that the heart of a fetus begins to beat at 45 days. Science knows when brain waves can be measured. Science knows that babies cannot do algebra, or pass intelligence tests that a chimpanzee (adult) can pass. Science knows that the life cycle of every human being, and every creature on this Earth, begins at conception and ends at death. Science knows that once conception occurs the ONLY thing that keeps an adult human being from coming into existence is DEATH. There is nothing left to know, and to suggest there is a lie.
We know everything we need to know. NO pro-abortion person can suggest a relevant thing we do not know. As I said, this Obama regurgitation of the radical, leftist position on abortion is an EVASION and a DECEPTION--simply trying to go right over the main issue.
The main issue is that we MUST define what we mean by a human being--either explicitly or implicitly. Otherwise, there is no basis for making infanticide a crime. There is no basis for making lynching of Indians or African-Americans or WASPS a crime. There is no basis for the crime of murder. It is a LIE to suggest that we do not take a positon on when life begins, or when human life exists. We HAVE to. It has nothing to do with science, but with DEFNITION and MORALITY.
So how do pro-life people define a human being. They have no problem. Yes, they define a human being as McCain did. But that is only the bottom line. The actual definition is direct and unassailable. To pro-life people, a human being is an individual of the species homo sapiens, genetically distinct from its parents, that in the normal course of human events, without the intervention of death, becomes an adult human being. Note that this includes a human baby (making infanticide a crime). It includes the human fetus as well. It includes African-Americans. It includes aborigines. It includes members of the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, even though they definitely have no soul (an admitted problem with the definition, and exception to the principle that we don't know who has a soul, since we do know a few people who CAN'T have a soul).
What is the alternative? Thre is none. That is why Obama could only come up with an EVASION. If you don't use this definition, there is no logical definition. "Viability" is certainly not one, since it is merely a matter of technolooyg. The human womb simply represents biological technology to provide a protective environment for a human being until the human being is able to survive in the next environment for which it is designed. We can certainly reproduce the womb at some pont. There is no scientific doubt that the human fetus is a genetically distinct, SEPARATE living organism living in the environment for which it was designed to live for its own protection for those first nine months. It is one of the ironies of history and biology that an evolutionary PROTECTION has become a DEATH TRAP for the human fetus.
I say there is no alternative definition to mine, which is the implicit definition of all pro-life people. There is one, dating back 50 years or more to the beginnings of the radical pro-abortion movement. It is this old, radical, monstrous definition to which Obama's evasion caters--a definition that is never argued because it is so monstrous. It is not a real definition at all, but an attempt to meet the obvious conclusion that there is no point of the lifeline of an individual member of homo sapiens, from conception to death, at which we can say tthat something happens that creates a "human being" on one side of that line, and no human being on the otherside. The lifeline of growth into an adult human being is continuous, and there are no breaks in that line other than death.
Enter Garrett Hardin and "Stalking the Wild Taboo". What was his response to this obvious problem with the logic of abortion on demand? This was a book in the 1960's, at which time Hardin was a RADICAL. The moderate position was tthat abortion on demand would be unthinkable, but that we needed to "liberalize" restrictive abortion restrictions for special cases (always a sham, by the way, and typical of 50 years of DECEPTION by the pro-abortion movement).
Hardin suggested that we did not NEED to define when life begins (the Obama position, if you have not figured it out). Since we can't really define it logically (without using something like my definition), we just have to pick an ARBITRARY POINT. What is the MOST CONVENIENT arbitrary point? If you have vollowed the logic, you realize where this is going. The most CONVENIENT arbitrary point is at birth, because we then can SEE the tangible baby, MAY become attached to it, and give it a birth certificate. So humanity is merely a matter of ARBITRARY GRACE by leftists playing God. As I told a law school class at the University of Texas School of Law back in 1972 or so, I don't even believe in God (although I don't say I know that God does not exist either). Why should I want to put either the woman in which a fetus is growing, OR leftists in general, in the position of GOD to decide arbitrarily when life begins? No one in that law school class was able to answer that, or this whole line of argument, and I had several law students come up to me afterward and admit that no one had an answer. That did not change the minds of those law students, however, because the pro-aboriton position is a matter of EMOTION rather than logic, and actually represents part of the religious faith of leftits--faith of the religion of feminism and leftism in general. It goes without saying that I have no inclination to accept Obama, even if he is the Messiah, in that position of God to set the ARBITRARY parameters of humanity. If you think about it, you should feel similarly uncomfortable that your very humanity depends on the ARBITRARY whim of people like Obama, who have NO moral sense of human life.
Philip K. Dick saidit better than I. Dick was a science fiction author whose books, like "The Man in the High Castle", tended to explore the nature of reality. He wrote a scathing science fiction story about the logical result of the Obama/Hardin "logic". He called the story "The Prepersons". In that story, children had to QUALIFY (sort of like for the Olympics) to be "human" at age 10. Until that time, children were merely "prepersons". If they failed to show they were worthy of becoming "persons", they were terminated before they actually attained personhood.
Philip K. Dick got the monstrous Obama/Hardin/Planned Parenthood "logic" exactly right. If you do not understand how monstrous it is to suggest that the deinfitiion of "humanity" is merely ARBITRARY--for CONVENIENCE--then there is no hope for you.
And you thought that Obama's answer on the beginning of human life was merely an EVASION (as Obama surely meant it to be). It is that. But it is also the rotten core of the pro-abortion argument. It is the radical leftist concept that there is NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE MORALITY, but only definitions that we adopt for our own convenience.
As I have said, and will continue to say, Obama is a radical leftist. He is a truly dangerous man. He proves it every time he gets away from a teleprompter and falls back on the radical leftism that he has obviously absorbed as part of his very being.
P.S. Yes, there was a time that I read leftist books, magazines and newspapers. That was before I realized how much I was wasting my time, because they never said anything different. Garrett Hardin said the same things that the radical left is saying now. The only difference is that so many things that were (rightly) regarded as part of the extreme left are now accepted as "establihment" thinking, and the former "moderate" positons have beomce the "extreme" conservative positions. Luckily, I don't have to be in a position of those poor moderates who wonder how they ended up "extreme conservatives" (too many of them, of course, simply changed from "moderates" into "extreme leftists" without ever realizing it, because there never was any core to their beliefs in the first place). I never had that problem, because I have been a conservative fromt he time I was in high school in Silver City, New Mexico until now. Since my belief system is based on PRINCIPLES which never change, I do not have to worry about the whiplash of changing fads and mores.
1 comment:
Valuable news summaries: http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=abortion
Post a Comment