Home Page Works Series 1-Quest To Be Whole Album 10-Generation Song
Prior Notes Song 6 NOTES - The Grove Next Notes
Description Quotes Music Video Equipment History Notes Comments BUY

The pagans sacrificed their children in the name of their worldview. Modern society is not a whit different. Abortion as birth control slays our children in the name of our worldview; freedom.


If anyone is curious, my personal opinion is that choice is indeed a high value.  God values choice enough to allow you to choose to reject Jesus and go to Hell.  That is why abortion as birth control is the most loathsome form of homicide.  As stated above, in that case abortion is anti-choice, allowing someone to attempt to undo their choice, though we know that of all consequences, this action in particular can never really be undone. The abortion proponents, unlike their chosen title, are con-choice. You made your choice when you unzipped your jeans.

The flip side of this is that I support the option of abortion in cases of rape and incest.  The woman did not make her choice in such an instance. To force her to bear the consequences of the vile man's choice is not righteous.  Can we be so cold as to say we ought to force a daughter to bear her father's child?  Can we be so twisted as to say we ought to force the women of this world to be a pool of child bearers for any rapist?

It will be objected by some that a living homo sapiens is what it is, and how it came to life does not change this.  Killing a homo sapiens is still homicide.  True.  But are there not other circumstances where homicide is considered the less of two evils?  Is it always wrong to kill someone who is trying to kill you or your family?  Is any type of war always wrong?  Is capital punishment always wrong?  Should a woman who will die if she carries a child to term be forced to die?  Think before you answer.  God told Saul to kill every person in a city.  Was God in sin?

It will be objected this leads to situation ethics.  Only if you think Jesus was selling situation ethics when He said all the Law was contained in love God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself.  Is a child in the womb your neighbor?


One of the things I find interesting is how the two sides defend their position on the abortion issue. The pro-life side says killing a helpless human being is murder, and that a parent is not a god who has a right to wield capital punishment on their offspring. The con-choice side has eroded to waving coat hangers, in effect defending the righteousness of their position by saying some women will do anything to kill their unborn child.

They used to talk about when life begins, but as the scientific evidence made a mockery of their position, they abandoned this. They used to talk about age of viability, but as medical science drove that age lower and lower, they abandoned this point too. Further, they did not want to give up partial birth abortions, when age of viability is as obviously against them as a rhino is bigger than a mouse. So they have really nothing but the appeal to behaviour, namely that some people will violate any law and thus suffer the harm of illegal behaviour. Wave the coat hangers. By doing so you are saying your side will do what they want despite any law. That reasoning would justify any two bit thief. 'I will steal no matter what law you make, so it should be legal for me to steal'. How does a demonstrated disregard for the law mean a law is wrong?

It would be objected by the con-choice side is that it is different because theft involves a second person but abortion is a private issue. Yet such a position is obviously not supported by the facts. The child is a living homo sapiens (you don't abort what is not alive) whose primary crime is that they have not yet learned to hire a lawyer to defend their human rights. We are not talking about cosmetic surgery.

The flip side of this is that if the woman wants the child, and has it killed inside her during an assault, charges of murder are brought against the assailant. But in fact the con-choice side wants such laws erased because it so clearly makes a mockery of their position. Think about that. They are willing to allow the life of a baby in the womb to be taken by force, against the mother's will, without any legal consequences, just to shore up their side's public image.

In combination, the right to abort and the right to prosecute means that a woman has the right to confer or deny the status of human being. Once this right over another living homo sapiens was called slavery. Just as the slave holders protested that freeing their slaves was a denial of their rights of property, secondary rights are overruled by the human right to life. Roe v Wade = Dread Scott.

So one side justifies their position as a human rights issue, and the other as the right to do whatever they want, including kill their slaves.

This said, I do not believe abortion will be constrained to any great degree in the United States. Our society has reached the point where doing your own thing is the ultimate right.

Unless you want to picket an abortion clinic.

 
Description Quotes Music Video Equipment History Notes Comments BUY
Prior Notes Song 6 NOTES - The Grove Next Notes
Home Page Works Series 1-Quest To Be Whole Album 10-Generation Song