HOWDY DOODY Y'ALL ! HEY DUDES, WAZ GOIN' DOWN IN THE FUNKY TOWN ?!....(NB: I've been practicing my American-English. Are you impressed?). 
ABORTION, AND WHY IT IS A PROFOUNDLY IMMORAL (i.e. EVIL) ACT
Abortion has become a pretty hot political issue in America over the fast few weeks. There is a lot of friction between Americans who are "pro-choice" (i.e. who basically believe that abortion 'on-demand' should be a Constitutional right-the way it was before Roe v Wade (1973) got rolled), and other Americans who are "pro-life" (i.e. who believe that with the exception of certain - very rare - circumstances/situations, abortion is ALWAYS morally WRONG and cannot be justified in any way.
Between 1973 when the the Supreme Court's ruling in "Roe v Wade" made abortion "on-demand" a Constitutional Right, and the present year, 2023, there have been over 64,000,000 abortions performed in America.
Why do some of us find the fact of this industrial-scale slaughter to be incomprehensible, to be unconscionable and a monstrous injustice? Well, I'm one of these people, so I'll tell you. The reason is that every single one of the 64 million + unborn babies who were killed - (MURDERED, actually, in the overwhelming majority of cases) - were innocent and defenceless living human beings. AND it is always (morally) WRONG - ALWAYS WRONG, to directly and intentionally kill innocent and defenceless human beings. "WRONG" is a moral term. If a certain act or type of behaviour is WRONG it means that you SHOULD NOT?MUST NOT perform it.
That's it. It's as simple as that. Finito. End of story, dude. There is - with RARE exception - no moral justification for abortion. The exceptions include where an abortion is required to prevent the death of the pregnant mother; to preserve the PHYSICAL health of the mother; where the embryo or foetus has lethal anomalies/abnormalities not compatible with life (e.g. anencephaly/"No Brain Syndrome", severe hydrocephalus, Trisomy - 13, Potter's Syndrome, etc).
To cut to the chase, if you don't know that elective abortion is a gravely immoral act - that it is a profoundly WRONG/BAD (EVIL) act, then you are either: * mentally retarded (in possession of an IQ that hovers around 80 points at most) or otherwise psychiatrically/psychologically disordered/ dysfunctional OR * you are scientifically ignorant OR * your conscience is deformed or "seared." The vast majority of the pro-abortion: Democrats; feminists; lobbyists; activists; protestors and demonstrators all fall into one or more of these categories.
HOW THE PRO-ABORTION MOVEMENT TRIES TO JUSTIFY ITS STANCE
When challenged with the fact that abortion is murder, the so-called, "pro-choice," movement continues to play the same old debunked "cards". These are....
(1) DEHUMANIZING THE UNBORN
The claim made here by the pro-abortion movement is that the unborn child is not a human person and thus does not have the same moral standing, and cannot make the same moral claims for him/herself that a real person can make.
RESPONSE
The response to this claim by the pro-life movement is that the idea that an unborn child (whether it be a; conceptus, a zygote, an embryo or a foetus) is not human is such a silly, absurd and anti-scientific notion, that it is not worth wasting much time on. it has been a long-established, incontrovertible, scientific fact, that the being in the womb is indeed a living being that os a member of the species homo sapiens.
Now, as for living. There are only THREE states of being that a physical entity be in; that is; ALIVE; DEAD or INANIMATE.
So, is the unborn baby, inanimate? NO. Inanimate objects do not grow and develop, they do not move on their own, they do not consume food. The wooden chair I am sitting on right now is an inanimate object. Eventually it will decay and fall apart. Also, the chair is an object I could cut up into pieces with a saw. I could then use those pieces to make a different wooden object, like a wooden box, for example.. but the chair will never be able to grow and develop ON ITS OWN into something else, because it is inanimate.
Is the unborn child DEAD? NO, because if it were there would be no need for an abortion.
So, that leaves only, LIVING. Thus, the unborn child is a LIVING HUMAN BEING.
(2) "DENYING THE PERSONHOOD OF THE UNBORN CHILD
This is a common strategy of the pro-abortion movement, namely, to claim that the unborn child is not a PERSON
The pro-abortion individual - if s/he has any degree of intellectual sophistication - will probably concede that the foetus is a living human being. But he'll say that the foetus is not a PERSON. He'll say it's not a PERSON because it's still developing and it is thus entirely dependent on its mother for survival, and this means that it lacks moral standing.
The problem here is with the view that personhood is acquired by degree and that it's forfeit if you are entirely dependent on someone else for survival. This claim obviously implicates more than the unborn. for it would seem that the; sick, the infirm, the elderly, the disabled, the one-year-old infants, etc; would all be caught up in this net. If we are not willing to look at a 3-month old infant child, or an elderly person in a Nursing Home, or a disabled person in a wheel-chair, if we're not willing to look at them and say: "Well, you're kind od not as much of a human person than me. you're not as 'peopley' as me. if we're not willing to do that - i.e. to say that personhood is attained by degree, contingent on factors like self-sufficiency, then we are left with the idea that personhood is INHERENT, and all of its attending moral rights and dignity are also inherent.
WHAT DOES INHERENT MEAN
Inherent means existing in something as permanent, essential and characteristic attribute of that thing. If something is inherent, it means that it belongs to the fundamental, essential nature of that thing. The idea that our human dignity and our human Rights are inherent, that our personhood is inherent, this is an idea that lies deep within the very foundation of America. To explain....
The most brilliant of the Enlightenment thinkers was an English political philosopher named John Locke. His text "Second Treatise on Government" (1698) had a huge impact on the Founding Fathers in the American colonies. The following famous lines written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 were copied more or less directly from Locke's ",Second Treatise on Government," namely....
"We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (Jefferson is referring to the God of Christianity) with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
The Right to LIFE is the most fundamental because without LIFE, one can not experience liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Right?
When Thomas Jefferson uses the "clunky" word "UNALIENABLE" he means that the God-ordained Rights he refers to: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are possessed by all men' and furthermore that these Rights are: DEEP-ROOTED; INTRINSIC; BUILT-IN;ORIGINAL; FIXED; UNAQUIRED; ESSENTIAL; NON-TRANSFERRABLE (UNABLE TO BE REMOVED/TAKEN AWAY) PART OF THE REAL GET-DOWN, "NITTY-GRITTY" attributes that make a human being a real human being.
Any idea of human Rights depends on the notion that they are UNALIENABLE. So, LOGICALLY, if an unborn baby does not have UNALIENABLE/INHERENT value (dignity, worth) then human value itself is nor permanent or essential and thus if an inborn baby does not have INHERENT value THEN NEITHER DO YOU or any other American citizen who is alive right now. THAT'S THE THING ABOUT INHERENT VALUE and INHERENT (or as Jeffersons says: "UNALIENABLE") human Rights.
If an unborn baby has no inherent Right to life or no inherent human dignity, it would mean that that the murder of the 1400 Israeli civilians by HAMAS on the 7th October this year was a non-issue. It would mean that the the cruel and barbaric ways they killed the innocent and defenceless persons they did, would not ,the next day, have immediately triggered a tsunami of moral revulsion, outrage and fury around the world. If you have a normal/properly - functioning conscience, then when you were first told about what had happened on the 7th October in Israel, and in particular, the unspeakable manners in which so many of those who died were murdered by HAMAS, your conscience would have instantly recoiled in shock and horror at such a monumental and grave moral wrong-doing (aka act of EVIL).
If thinking about the deaths of the 1400 persons butchered by HAMAS does not affect your conscience. If you do not hear the small, still "voice" of conscience telling you that this slaughter was absolutely WRONG, that it ought never have happened, and that all those who perpetrated the horror should die If you do not receive this kind of clear message from your conscience, then you a a severely fucked-up unit, and you need help ( provided, that is, you are still capable of being helped.
In the case of abortion, if a pregnant woman who is one - week pregnant or 3 - months pregnant or 6 - months pregnant, i.e (who is at literally any stage in the gestational period) can understand the argument i have set down here against abortion and/or still has a good (healthy/non-deformed); then ignoring the voice of conscience/the rational arguments that I have summarised here against abortion and going ahead with an elective abortion is a grave moral WRONG. It flouts the First Commandment: THOU SHALLT NOT KILL God PERSONALLY gave Moses that Commandment (and 9 others) on the top of Mount Sinai. It is called a 'commandment' because it was a VERY SOLEMN, SERIOUS DIRECTIVE given to humanity. If you violate the first Commandment: THOU SHALLT NOT KILL (MURDER) you will be personally pissing off God - BIG TIME. And if you think you'll get away with it - tHINK AGAIN
Dachshund - the WONDER HOUND
DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!
ABORTION, AND WHY IT IS A PROFOUNDLY IMMORAL (i.e. EVIL) ACT
Abortion has become a pretty hot political issue in America over the fast few weeks. There is a lot of friction between Americans who are "pro-choice" (i.e. who basically believe that abortion 'on-demand' should be a Constitutional right-the way it was before Roe v Wade (1973) got rolled), and other Americans who are "pro-life" (i.e. who believe that with the exception of certain - very rare - circumstances/situations, abortion is ALWAYS morally WRONG and cannot be justified in any way.
Between 1973 when the the Supreme Court's ruling in "Roe v Wade" made abortion "on-demand" a Constitutional Right, and the present year, 2023, there have been over 64,000,000 abortions performed in America.
Why do some of us find the fact of this industrial-scale slaughter to be incomprehensible, to be unconscionable and a monstrous injustice? Well, I'm one of these people, so I'll tell you. The reason is that every single one of the 64 million + unborn babies who were killed - (MURDERED, actually, in the overwhelming majority of cases) - were innocent and defenceless living human beings. AND it is always (morally) WRONG - ALWAYS WRONG, to directly and intentionally kill innocent and defenceless human beings. "WRONG" is a moral term. If a certain act or type of behaviour is WRONG it means that you SHOULD NOT?MUST NOT perform it.
That's it. It's as simple as that. Finito. End of story, dude. There is - with RARE exception - no moral justification for abortion. The exceptions include where an abortion is required to prevent the death of the pregnant mother; to preserve the PHYSICAL health of the mother; where the embryo or foetus has lethal anomalies/abnormalities not compatible with life (e.g. anencephaly/"No Brain Syndrome", severe hydrocephalus, Trisomy - 13, Potter's Syndrome, etc).
To cut to the chase, if you don't know that elective abortion is a gravely immoral act - that it is a profoundly WRONG/BAD (EVIL) act, then you are either: * mentally retarded (in possession of an IQ that hovers around 80 points at most) or otherwise psychiatrically/psychologically disordered/ dysfunctional OR * you are scientifically ignorant OR * your conscience is deformed or "seared." The vast majority of the pro-abortion: Democrats; feminists; lobbyists; activists; protestors and demonstrators all fall into one or more of these categories.
HOW THE PRO-ABORTION MOVEMENT TRIES TO JUSTIFY ITS STANCE
When challenged with the fact that abortion is murder, the so-called, "pro-choice," movement continues to play the same old debunked "cards". These are....
(1) DEHUMANIZING THE UNBORN
The claim made here by the pro-abortion movement is that the unborn child is not a human person and thus does not have the same moral standing, and cannot make the same moral claims for him/herself that a real person can make.
RESPONSE
The response to this claim by the pro-life movement is that the idea that an unborn child (whether it be a; conceptus, a zygote, an embryo or a foetus) is not human is such a silly, absurd and anti-scientific notion, that it is not worth wasting much time on. it has been a long-established, incontrovertible, scientific fact, that the being in the womb is indeed a living being that os a member of the species homo sapiens.
Now, as for living. There are only THREE states of being that a physical entity be in; that is; ALIVE; DEAD or INANIMATE.
So, is the unborn baby, inanimate? NO. Inanimate objects do not grow and develop, they do not move on their own, they do not consume food. The wooden chair I am sitting on right now is an inanimate object. Eventually it will decay and fall apart. Also, the chair is an object I could cut up into pieces with a saw. I could then use those pieces to make a different wooden object, like a wooden box, for example.. but the chair will never be able to grow and develop ON ITS OWN into something else, because it is inanimate.
Is the unborn child DEAD? NO, because if it were there would be no need for an abortion.
So, that leaves only, LIVING. Thus, the unborn child is a LIVING HUMAN BEING.
(2) "DENYING THE PERSONHOOD OF THE UNBORN CHILD
This is a common strategy of the pro-abortion movement, namely, to claim that the unborn child is not a PERSON
The pro-abortion individual - if s/he has any degree of intellectual sophistication - will probably concede that the foetus is a living human being. But he'll say that the foetus is not a PERSON. He'll say it's not a PERSON because it's still developing and it is thus entirely dependent on its mother for survival, and this means that it lacks moral standing.
The problem here is with the view that personhood is acquired by degree and that it's forfeit if you are entirely dependent on someone else for survival. This claim obviously implicates more than the unborn. for it would seem that the; sick, the infirm, the elderly, the disabled, the one-year-old infants, etc; would all be caught up in this net. If we are not willing to look at a 3-month old infant child, or an elderly person in a Nursing Home, or a disabled person in a wheel-chair, if we're not willing to look at them and say: "Well, you're kind od not as much of a human person than me. you're not as 'peopley' as me. if we're not willing to do that - i.e. to say that personhood is attained by degree, contingent on factors like self-sufficiency, then we are left with the idea that personhood is INHERENT, and all of its attending moral rights and dignity are also inherent.
WHAT DOES INHERENT MEAN
Inherent means existing in something as permanent, essential and characteristic attribute of that thing. If something is inherent, it means that it belongs to the fundamental, essential nature of that thing. The idea that our human dignity and our human Rights are inherent, that our personhood is inherent, this is an idea that lies deep within the very foundation of America. To explain....
The most brilliant of the Enlightenment thinkers was an English political philosopher named John Locke. His text "Second Treatise on Government" (1698) had a huge impact on the Founding Fathers in the American colonies. The following famous lines written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 were copied more or less directly from Locke's ",Second Treatise on Government," namely....
"We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (Jefferson is referring to the God of Christianity) with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
The Right to LIFE is the most fundamental because without LIFE, one can not experience liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Right?
When Thomas Jefferson uses the "clunky" word "UNALIENABLE" he means that the God-ordained Rights he refers to: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are possessed by all men' and furthermore that these Rights are: DEEP-ROOTED; INTRINSIC; BUILT-IN;ORIGINAL; FIXED; UNAQUIRED; ESSENTIAL; NON-TRANSFERRABLE (UNABLE TO BE REMOVED/TAKEN AWAY) PART OF THE REAL GET-DOWN, "NITTY-GRITTY" attributes that make a human being a real human being.
Any idea of human Rights depends on the notion that they are UNALIENABLE. So, LOGICALLY, if an unborn baby does not have UNALIENABLE/INHERENT value (dignity, worth) then human value itself is nor permanent or essential and thus if an inborn baby does not have INHERENT value THEN NEITHER DO YOU or any other American citizen who is alive right now. THAT'S THE THING ABOUT INHERENT VALUE and INHERENT (or as Jeffersons says: "UNALIENABLE") human Rights.
If an unborn baby has no inherent Right to life or no inherent human dignity, it would mean that that the murder of the 1400 Israeli civilians by HAMAS on the 7th October this year was a non-issue. It would mean that the the cruel and barbaric ways they killed the innocent and defenceless persons they did, would not ,the next day, have immediately triggered a tsunami of moral revulsion, outrage and fury around the world. If you have a normal/properly - functioning conscience, then when you were first told about what had happened on the 7th October in Israel, and in particular, the unspeakable manners in which so many of those who died were murdered by HAMAS, your conscience would have instantly recoiled in shock and horror at such a monumental and grave moral wrong-doing (aka act of EVIL).
If thinking about the deaths of the 1400 persons butchered by HAMAS does not affect your conscience. If you do not hear the small, still "voice" of conscience telling you that this slaughter was absolutely WRONG, that it ought never have happened, and that all those who perpetrated the horror should die If you do not receive this kind of clear message from your conscience, then you a a severely fucked-up unit, and you need help ( provided, that is, you are still capable of being helped.
In the case of abortion, if a pregnant woman who is one - week pregnant or 3 - months pregnant or 6 - months pregnant, i.e (who is at literally any stage in the gestational period) can understand the argument i have set down here against abortion and/or still has a good (healthy/non-deformed); then ignoring the voice of conscience/the rational arguments that I have summarised here against abortion and going ahead with an elective abortion is a grave moral WRONG. It flouts the First Commandment: THOU SHALLT NOT KILL God PERSONALLY gave Moses that Commandment (and 9 others) on the top of Mount Sinai. It is called a 'commandment' because it was a VERY SOLEMN, SERIOUS DIRECTIVE given to humanity. If you violate the first Commandment: THOU SHALLT NOT KILL (MURDER) you will be personally pissing off God - BIG TIME. And if you think you'll get away with it - tHINK AGAIN
Dachshund - the WONDER HOUND
DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!
Last edited:
