Attacking Abortion

Fetuses are an easy mark to kill, because they can’t fight back. If each fetus was equipped with sharp teeth and snake venom to bite and kill the doctor while being aborted, it’s very likely that abortion would end, because doctors would be unwilling to perform them due to the immense danger involved.

Abortion is not a problem that can be solved at the same level at which it was created. All societies degenerate into slaughtering innocents sooner or later, but few institutionalize it, besides gladiatorial combat, witch hunts, sacrificing maidens to volcanoes, capital punishment for illegal drugs, and abortion in modern nations.

Abortion fits well into the Satanic agenda, because it sets a precedent for corrupt beliefs in individual lives. If you, a friend, or a family member has had an abortion, you may believe that infanticide is justified in certain situations, and that these women should not feel guilty. To form divisions, you may complain about women (the “others”) who “abuse” abortion as a form of birth control, instead of only undertaking it with a heavy heart. Instead of protesting the doctors who perform abortions, you may justify it by claiming they are only doing their jobs. That didn’t work for the Schutzstaffel officers in the post-World War II trials, so it shouldn’t work for hypocritical doctors in 2011.

In the same vein, pro-choice advocates refer to pregnant women as “women” instead of “mothers,” because they have to keep up the charade that the humans mothers are carrying in their wombs are no better than goiters or cancerous tumors. Mothers who abort their baby and then go on to have more babies will teach their unaborted children that the child(ren) they aborted would have had unhappy lives because of some reason or combination of reasons, i.e. she was working on her career, going to college, the father ran off, the baby wouldn’t have been loved, she wasn’t emotionally ready for motherhood, she didn’t have a job, there was no money, or she didn’t want to have a “welfare baby.” Then, her unaborted children will grow up and either 1.) carry the same belief with them to justify their mother’s abortion; 2.) carry the same belief justified by the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton argument (“pro death”); 3.) become staunchly pro-life (“anti choice”); 4.) adopt some middle ground to explain the past and guide the future, i.e. be pro-life but say their mom made a mistake, or adopt situational ethics (kill babies during an economic recession and choose life during boom times).

Just because a child takes 9 months to be born and 18 years to grow up does not mean that is not a worthy investment. Even from a utilitarian viewpoint, we need more humans to continue the American way of life, to invent new technologies, to build new machines, to create new art, and to develop new philosophies. And from a human perspective, we should all be able to imagine what would have happened if our mothers would have aborted us in the womb — instead of being alive on the earth, there would be the emptiness of no earthly existence whatsoever. Fetuses are not supposed to be slaves, no more than the black people were supposed to be slaves to the white people before the 20th century.

The Bible says “God created man [men and women] in his own image” (Genesis 1:27), and said to us, “be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl [birds] of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). It does NOT say “reduce your numbers,” “engage in homosexual relations to avoid having children,” or “implement policies of zero population growth once the population reaches 7 billion” (or 500 million, or whatever number).

In ejaculation, up to 500 million mobile spermatozoa are released in a solution of semen to reach the fallopian tubes through the birth canal and eat through the jelly-like matrix (ovum coat) around the unfertilized egg (ovum). One spermatozoon implants itself, creating a zygote (fertilized egg), which moves down through a fallopian tube by the beating of cilia and implants itself in the lining of the uterus to grow like a cancer for 9 months, creating a baby. In dogs, 39 male chromosomes combine with 39 female chromosomes, creating the seed for a puppy with 78 chromosomes. In humans, 23 male chromosomes combine with 23 female chromosomes (or 24 in trisomy-21, a.k.a. Down syndrome) to create the seed (zygote) for a baby with (hopefully) 46 chromosomes.

If you believe that a zygote or fetus has no value because it has only the potential for human life, just as each spermatozoon has only the potential for human life (when combined with an ovum), try disturbing a nest of sea turtle or eagle eggs. Then, you will see that the State cares more about an endangered species than humanity, because the State believes that we are too plentiful and need to be expunged.

Every breath you exhale increases the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but every breath that plants and the oceans (71% of the earth by land area) inhale decreases the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plants and the ocean also create or help to create oxygen. Just because half the world is dying of starvation does not mean that you should not have children if you are living in a first-world country. It’s natural to want to have a family and have children, not out of selfishness, but out of both selfishness and selflessness simultaneously. If you believe life is beautiful, you are being selfless by having children, and if you believe life is decadent, you are being selfish by having children, but the truth is there are elements of good and elements of evil in the world, but we have to take the good with the bad. The worst option is not to fight.

Though nature may beseech us with hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanoes, the reality is this is OUR PLANET, belonging to God first, humans second, and all other organisms and forces a distant third. We have the right to have children.

The Case for Stem Cell Research

On Thursday, Sept. 9, a U.S. court of appeals overturned a federal judge’s ban on government funding of embryonic stem cell research at the National Institutes of Health.

Embryonic stem cells could be used to cure Parkinson’s disease, injuries to the spinal cord, and other genetic defects. However, research involves the destroying the embryo (fertilized egg), which would develop into a fetus in about eight weeks and be born in nine months if it were implanted into a woman’s uterus, making this funding controversial.

According to Michael Kinsley of Time Magazine, fertility clinics destroy or freeze more embryos than will ever be used in stem cell research, so the controversy is groundless. While adult stem cells have been proposed as an alternative to embryonic stem cells, they are much harder to isolate, divide more slowly, are less plastic, are prone to DNA abnormalities, and have not been shown to treat heart damage in mice.

When a woman takes the “morning after” pill after sex, she hopes to destroy any fertilized egg in her Fallopian tubes before it implants in the uterine wall, which may take over 24 hours. This destruction of potential human life is deliberate and purposeless, yet perfectly legal and uncontroversial. At least stem cell research tries to benefit humanity instead of merely reducing our numbers.

Sources:
Bloomberg: Embryonic Stem Cell Funds Resume by U.S. After Ruling
Time: The False Controversy of Stem Cells

This is an essay I wrote for my college-credit course Basic Anatomy & Physiology for Health Careers (BSC1080).

Stop Abortion, Eugenics

I know they don’t teach you real history in history class. I know you haven’t read anything about the past 200 years of mankind and you have no historical knowledge. You don’t even know your own country. I don’t either, but if there’s something I want to know I don’t assume the status quo is correct. I look it up.

Eugenics was big in the 1920s in the U.S.A., and most states had laws allowing the government to sterilize people unfit to be parents. This isn’t just the insane—it’s people who have parents and family who are alcoholics and drug-users. Men and women who were mentally stable and led admirable lives were forcibly sterilized—60,000 of them. They could never have children or lead a fulfilling life (a fulfilling life involves raising a family). Not only that—the sterilization procedures were dangerous and frequently caused infections or death.

Do you want forced sterilization to come back? When you support abortion, you’re leading to it. The government is taking more and more power. Obama’s healthcare bills have “end of life” procedures to kill off sick old people. We don’t have the “resources” to take care of them. If the government would stop pushing us around and ruining us financially, we’d have plenty of resources.

Elitists like David Rockefeller and Bill Gates support abortion because it kills more of us. They support eugenics, “euthanasia” the sick and the old, forced sterilization, and forced abortion because they want the Earth’s population to be 500 million. Of course, they, their families, and their friends shouldn’t be subjugated. Just everyone else.

As a man I have no right to comment on rape? As an adult, how do you have the right to comment on teenagers? How do you have the right to say anything? The truth is, we all have the right to comment on whatever we want. There is no “right” to abortion, no more than there is a right to stab your neighbors eyes out.

Read this: http://current.com/1sblm4c

This post is my reply to a commentator on my abortion article, but I won’t repost his comment because it’s crap.

Why Abortion is Wrong Even if it’s Right

I’m going down a hypothetical path where abortion is ethical and just, despite knowing it isn’t. I will prove that even if my knowledge is false and abortion is ethical, one who goes down that “ethical” path reaches a dead end, the end result for which is tenfold worse than believing abortion is unethical. Finally, with plain-old logic, I’ll prove that abortion is the wrong choice either way.

Definitions

First, let’s make the definition of “fetus” really clear. The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines it as this:

“In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.”

They say “unborn young” instead of “unborn baby.” But what is a “young”? In the American Heritage Dictionary, the only definitions of “young” as a noun are these:

1. Young persons considered as a group; youth: entertainment for the young.
2. Offspring; brood: a lioness with her young.

Young persons could be anyone up to eighteen, which is fairly broad. But we know what the lioness is with. She’s with her “young,” so she’s also with her “babies,” because the words are synonyms. Offspring and brood are both babies in their infancies. This means that fetus == unborn child, regardless of a pro or anti-abortion stance. It’s just meaningless semantics.

Now that we know that a mother carries an unborn child, we have to decide if he (or it) has human rights. And yes, I use “he” to mean he or she because I don’t use gender-neutral language.

The human rights question

There are three angles to human rights for unborn humans. They are:

1. The unborn baby has human rights regardless of his mother’s opinion.
2. The unborn baby has no human rights regardless of his mother’s opinion.
3. The unborn baby has human rights if the mother wants to keep him, but no rights if he is unwanted.

I’ve never heard anyone use the third one. No matter which side you come from, human rights don’t fluctuate on a whim. With #3 eliminated, #1 and #2 remain.

#1 is what pro-lifers hold. Even if the mother wants to kill her unborn baby, it’s wrong because he has rights.

#2 is what pro-choicers hold. If the mother wants to kill her unborn baby, that’s fine because he has no rights. If she wants to bear him, that’s fine too because it’s her choice.

The “truths” abortionists hold to be self-evident

Most abortionists hold two beliefs which confirm abortion as ethical, should the mother choose to execute her right. They are:

1. Abortion is mostly harmless: There is little risk to the mother’s body in extracting the unborn baby. The risks in carrying the child to birth are surely higher. Because the child does not yet have human rights, any pain caused to him during the killing does not matter. Most abortions are performed before the fifth month, where the child has not yet formed a human-like brain, so he likely comprehends no pain anyway.

2. Abortion is generally good for society: We have too many people, so it’s good to eliminate a lot of them before birth. Most abortions are performed on babies who would have fewer material possessions and creature comforts if they were born and raised, because their parents are under-funded. This would mean they would have a lower quality of life than other children, which would be unfair. If a to-be-aborted boy was born and raised despite this, his mother wouldn’t love him as much, because if she did, she would never have considered aborting him, instead pressing forward no matter what the difficulties. This would be quite saddening for the boy. Also, teenage mothers receive the most abortions, and because becoming pregnant in your teens is now frowned upon, the child would be socially stigmatized if he was born.

Pragmatism vs. idealism : debunking the myth

The common belief is that the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate can be summed with two words: pragmatism versus idealism. Pro-abortionists are pragmatists, meaning they’re down-to-Earth and practical, while anti-abortionists are idealists, subscribing to over-arching, unmovable values, usually rooted in God, whose existence cannot be scientifically proven. Pro-abortionists believe human life begins once the human-like neural pathways are formed about six months into the pregnancy, while anti-abortionists believe human life begins when life beings: at the point of conception. Some pro-abortionists think it’s alright to kill a baby two minutes before he pops out, but that’s extreme; most concede that if he can survive outside the mother, even with human help, he has human rights.

You may have read all this. You may be thinking it’s pretty reasonable. But actually, it’s just a difference of six months. I know in my heart that human life starts at conception, but both are arbitrary and idealistic. You can’t say one is pragmatic because neither is.

The hidden dark side of abortion

We already know the dark side of accepting abortion: we lose lots of healthy babies. To me, that’s a real shame. Plenty of women are trying but failing at making babies right now, so to throw away perfectly good ones is just wasteful. Then, when you add into the mix that humans have a soul; that they are special, unlike cows and pigs, the case against abortion grows even larger.

But there is an even worse, hidden dark side. The hidden dark side is that by gaining abortion privileges, you think you’ve secured the rights to your body, but in fact, you’ve done just the opposite. You’ve lost them. Now, the state can force you to kill if your baby has Down syndrome, because it’s for the public good. We’ve already determined that abortion is ethical and harmless. Even if you want to keep the baby, democracy will prevail, trumping your rights to your “malformed” child. Do you want that to happen?

The case of rape

Raped women don’t usually become pregnant, evidently because of the fear and shock. A few times it does happen, and pro-abortionists try to use this as a weapon. The argument: rape victims should be allowed to abort, because they’ve suffered enough trauma already.

Let’s think about this logically. There are three people involved in this relationship: the rapist, the victim, and the child. Who is without-a-doubt, completely innocent?

The rapist is bad. Raping a woman isn’t a nice thing to do. The victim may also be completely guiltless. But more likely, culpability entered into the game. She was partially responsible because she didn’t take adequate precautions. She should have known the danger of rape, for a woman, is always present. If I walk down the street with a hat stuffed with hundred dollar bills, I can’t act surprised when I’m robbed.

You may say culpability doesn’t matter. But you already believe pro-abortionists are more intuitive and pragmatic people in general. Isn’t culpability a pragmatic belief? Doesn’t it bode well with your justifications for abortion?

Regardless, the child is the most angelic of the troika. Killing him is completely the wrong action. If you must kill someone, kill the rapist and keep the child. I’ll send a sympathy card to the rapist’s family.

The bias against teenage pregnancy

Being pregnant at fourteen is perfectly normal. Only in the twentieth century have we so firmly criminalized it. People used to die quickly, so it was important to start creating life early and often. Fourteen-year-old girls can easily become pregnant, because they’re already women biologically, even if the government says otherwise.

I have a cousin who had a child at fourteen. That kid is now a perfectly normal, smart-witted girl, soon to be five. I would’ve hated for her to be killed.

Don’t kill your unborn baby just because you’re a teen. So what if other people shun you? Are you going to let society dictate the fate of your baby? Oh, you say your career is ruined now. You have to put money above human life. How weak. You failure. What kind of career have you picked anyway, if having a child as a teenager is going to ruin it? Not a very good career, I can say that.

Come back when you’ve grown up a little. I’ll be waiting.

A better life

I don’t understand it when people say “don’t punish the child.” Abort this one, and have another child later when you’re financially secure, because he’ll have a better life and be wanted. As if being born unwanted is so terrible a punishment. If I was an unwanted, unborn child who got to choose between life and death, I’d be born unwanted anyway, even if I was crippled and retarded. Anything to live. I can’t live if I’m already dead. I can’t do good in this world if I’m snuffed out before having a chance.

What if it’s an incestuous rape and the unborn child is deaf, blind, retarded, and paraplegic?

Have the child anyway. He’ll have a shot at out-shining Helen Keller, and maybe he can be a shining light for others too. :grin:

Should governments criminalize abortions?

Of course. If a government fails to protect the sanctity of human life, what good is that government? The core mission of government is to protect the sick and the weak: the ones that cannot speak for themselves. Abortion should be illegal, and women and doctors who participate in it should be charged with murder. A very unfortunate form of murder. At least if you kill an adult, he has a fighting chance at killing you first. Not so with a helpless baby.

If you’re considering an abortion:

Let me just have one more stab at convincing you to keep the baby. Consider this: once you go through with it, there’s no turning back. But if you have the kid anyway, you can always turn back. Don’t you want the option of turning back? Even when he’s fifteen, you can knock him out with some sleeping pills and beat him over the head with a brick. Sure, you’ll probably go to jail for a while, but it’s all good. You can just claim the Andrea Yates defense. :cool: