Abortion: Clarity is More Important Than Agreement

By Rich Kozlovich

I have a ton of drafts in my files, and I keep trying to organize them.  While doing so there are times I find an old draft I didn't publish, which is how I came across this article, Analyst Infanticide argument shouldn't surprise, discussing a position being propounded in the Journal of Medical Ethics, titled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”

Shocked yet?  If not…give this a little time…because a lot more is coming. In this article he outlines their views by saying:

They claim the child is not a person until they are capable of understanding they are a sentient being and until then “the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people. 

Gualberto Garcia Jones, of Personhood USA, said the statements in the article should not shock to anybody, as they have been the same views advocated by Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton who also has argued for the right to kill infants.  Jones pointed out that Singer is a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, where Minerva teaches.

Last year appearing on “Up with Chris Hayes” Singer said.  A person is a being with some awareness of who they are, existing beyond simply the physical organism.  When asked if that would exclude a four month old baby, he said, Possibly. I don’t think that’s problematic to say a four month old baby is not actually a person, that’s simply true.

This isn’t some new and startling view just now being adopted because our consciences have been seared by millions of abortions n American. He notes that;

Singer wrote as long ago as 1979:  Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” In 1993, he stated that newborns should not be considered a person until after at least 30 days after birth and doctors should kill some disabled babies immediately.” The slippery slope everyone warned of years ago was already foundational to their thinking. It is also more wide spread than we might think. 

He goes on to say; Peter Breen, founder of the Thomas More Society, says the problem with the premise is there is no way to have a firm definition of when one should qualify for legal protection. “The logical conclusion of saying that someone’s life is worth less at one month after birth rather than later is where do you draw the line. You either have the right to life or you don’t.

Now note this:

He went on to say that the authors were simply following the logical progression that began when abortion was legalized in the 1970s.  In the beginning abortion advocates said the child was simply a lump of cells. Then with ultrasound technology it became obvious that wasn’t so,” Breen said.  Then the argument moved to suggesting that it was acceptable to abort a child out of the womb such as partial birth abortion, to finally refusing medical care for a child who survives a ‘botched’ abortion.”

First of all, once a baby is born it's an American citizen, including a baby that survives an abortion, and is entitled to rights as an American citizen.  It absolutely is murder to fail to do everything to help that baby to survive.  While some in the pro-abortion community would deny it, a key element in the movement to move person hood beyond birth is a lack of belief that human beings are unique creatures made in the image of God.

The terms Pro-life and Pro-Choice are misnomers adopted by the media. Pro-Life people are not pro-life. They are anti-abortion. The media and the left are so fond of pointing out how as a group seem to support the death penalty, claiming hypocrisy. They are opposed to the murder of innocent life. Those who face the death penalty are being executed for heinous crimes. They are not innocent and they will not be murdered.

Those who support abortion are not Pro-Choice, they are pro-abortion. They support the murder of innocent life while emotionally and dramatically opposing the death penalty for those who lack every vestige of innocence due to their actions. Who are the hypocrites? Which group sounds insane to you?

Let’s not have any mistakes over this:

There is only one reason to be in support of abortion; you don’t believe it is murder.
There is only one reason to be against abortion; you believe it is murder!
There is only one reason to believe that abortion is murder and you believe in God!
There is only one reason to believe that abortion isn’t murder and you don’t believe in God!

Of course it really depends on who your God is! In ancient times it was common practice to sacrifice infants to the various Baal gods of the ancient Canaanites, and even as late as first century BCE when the Carthaginians fought the Romans this was practiced. It is believed that Hannibal had an older brother sacrificed in such a manner. Why? Because they believed this would guarantee good harvests and good fortune for their people. It was an economic issue.

Why is society presumably doing this today? Because if may impact the lives of the women economically or emotionally if they're not allowed to murder their unborn child.   We moderns with our scientific rhetoric and psycho babble are as guilty of murder as were the ignorant ancients. They did it in the name of their gods.  We do it proving we have no God.

Green Paganism

By CFACT Ed, Mark Hendrickson  | August 15th, 2020 | Environment @ CFACT 

 

Editor's Note:  While this article is almost two years old, it is in point of fact timeless.  Definition leads to clarity, and we need to understand all this misery being caused by the Biden administration in the name of global warming is in fact foundationally nature worshiping paganism in origin, thought and intent.  Once we understand that, everything else becomes clear.

Many zealous greens are strongly imbued with pagan values. Paganism is generally defined as polytheism mixed in with nature worship. Primitive pagans frequently cowered before the forces of nature, fatalistically resigned to being at nature’s mercy, believing that progress was not only impossible, but a criminal offense against nature. So complete was their submission to nature, and so foreign to them was the idea that individual lives have value, that pagan societies often practiced human sacrifice to appease the gods of nature, particularly the sun god (e.g., the Aztecs).

Let’s forget about polytheism for now. What’s more important are the attitudes toward nature and human life. In the modern scientific era, many people – whether prompted by theistic or humanistic beliefs and values – reject the pagan beliefs that humankind should submit to nature and that individual human lives deserves protection. However, many other people, particularly hardcore greens, reject those principles and replicate primitive paganism by exalting nature and devaluing human life.

Pagan greens insist that we cling to dependence on natural, “clean, renewable” sources of energy, namely, from the wind and sun. Try as they might, though, they can’t coax consistency and reliability out of those fickle natural sources. Nor are wind and solar energy really clean or renewable, since they depend on massive consumption of many “nonrenewable” resources, some of them highly polluting. (They also kill more wildlife than fossil fuels do, but that’s another story.)

Of particular concern are the sometimes rabidly anti-human beliefs of green pagans. They have variously labelled the human race “a virus,” “a disease” “vermin,” “a cancer.” The hatred for humanity is palpable. Here is more: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing”; “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs”; “Man is no more important than any other species.”

Like some primitive pagan societies, groveling in fear before the forces of nature, pagan greens believe that some individuals need to be sacrificed for life to go on. Thus, the founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, favored banning DDT because the ban would, “get rid of some of them” (in Ebenezer Scrooge’s words, “decrease the surplus population”) via insect-borne malaria and insect-caused crop destruction. Indeed, the human death toll from banning rather than moderating the use of DDT has exceeded the death toll from communism, making environmentalism the most lethal leftist ideology in history. That shouldn’t be surprising, for communists at least paid lip service (however dishonestly) to “the good of the people,” while pagan greens regard human life as no better than a pestilential germ.

The anti-human animus of pagan greens even gave rise to a pejorative term: “speciesism” – i.e., the belief that humans are superior to other species. Well, in pagan green cosmology, humans may not be superior to other species, but in the real world, we are. Forget about us being at the top of the food chain. Think moon-landings, movie magic, Mozart and McCartney. Humans are unique. Every other species pursues its self-interest without a thought for the long-term survival of other species. Only humans have enough foresight to take deliberate steps to try to conserve other species. Only humans could feel regret and grieve if a beloved species goes extinct. Only humans are clever enough to discover or invent 57 different genders. Sorry, animal kingdom, but it’s no contest – humans are superior.

The contrary belief to speciesism is that all species are equal. That belief can be harmful to humans. About 30 years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency blocked the cleanup of sewage in the Tijuana River Basin on the grounds that the cleanup would endanger the survival of the life forms that dwelled in that toxic (to humans) brew. Yes, federal bureaucrats placed the survival of various bacteria above the health of human beings. That’s pagan!

Another manifestation of anti-human green paganism is their preference for anti-growth agendas. The deadliest environment for a human being is poverty, yet greens work to thwart economic development in developing countries by trying to deny them access to the very fossil fuels that enabled the people in developed countries to climb out of poverty and live thriving, healthy lives. You can read details of these tragic and genocidal policies in Paul Driessen’s superb book, Eco-Imperialism. We need an environmentalism as if people mattered. (As a counterpoise to Friends of the Earth, we could use an environmental advocacy group called “Friends of people who live on Earth.)

Green icon Paul Ehrlich once asserted, “Economic growth is not the solution it’s the problem.” He is 180 degrees off-target. Growth is the solution. If it were true that the more economic development there is, the more polluted our environment would be, then our goose would be cooked. We could conceivably get so prosperous that we’d pollute ourselves to death. But the world doesn’t work that way.

Instead, there is a well-known pattern known as the Kuznets curve (named after the late economist Simon Kuznets who explained the pattern). What happens is that when societies begin to develop and climb out of poverty, pollution rises. But once development gets to the point where basic needs are met and discretionary income rises, people are willing and able to spend money on both pollution remediation and pollution prevention. Consequently, affluent (developed) societies are less polluted than developing societies.

Contemporary green paganism is an atavistic, anti-life fetish. Cloaked in mystical ignorance and wildly misanthropic, contemporary green pagans are as much of a threat to their fellow humans as their primitive forbears ever were.

Authors

• CFACT Ed

  CFACT -- We're freedom people.

• Mark Hendrickson

  Mark Hendrickson, Ph.D., is an economist who has analyzed the global warming story for 30 years.