Choice??

[nikolai_42]

I have never forayed into the abortion debate so why I am now (if this can even be said to getting in the debate), I can't say. It may have something to do with the persistent defense of a group that exists almost solely for the purpose of performing abortions - even in light of all the atrocities that the same group perpetuates.

In thinking about the issue, some radical departures from common sense seem to circle around the debate today. Not the least of which (in my mind) are the following :

1. If you are for abortion, you are called "Pro-choice". This is almost euphemistic since it attempts to avoid the ugly truth and paint it with a seemingly positive brush. But if you stop to think about it for even a small amount of time, since when does that make anything better? In an age that is all about not infringing on "my" rights, what insanity omits this situation from that thinking? In other words, where does "choice" make it okay to commit murder (more on that contentious word in a moment)? In the founding documents of the nation?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Personal Choice, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

Strike one (no pun intended). In fact, it is striking that the document goes on immediately to say that it is the government that is supposed to UPHOLD LIFE!!! A little more on this annoying document shortly..

2. Ahhh...you say...but life doesn't begin at conception. It can't begin until...um...21 weeks? Delivery? The abortionist (at least those shown on the Planned Parenthood videos) has to convince himself that life doesn't begin until the...thing...fetus...mass...is outside the womb. Then, magically, it's alive! What a miracle for something that has no more biological (or, apparently, moral) significance than a rock to grow for 9 months and require food...and move...and respond to stimulus (I can attest to this firsthand!)...to basically be like one of those Sea Monkeys you buy from the back of a comic book for a few dollars. Then...when it hits air...it's instantly transformed into a human - endowed with all the abilities and rights of same!

See...I have a hunch that the abortion doctors don't buy the redefinition of life either. If it were just a rock or a sea monkey being removed, you wouldn't have to do something very specific to end its existence. A rock (or something at that level) doesn't require scissors to strategically excise it (at least not for the rock's sake) or a vacuum applied at the right place to terminate its...um...get rid of it. You just take it out. Period. Then throw it away without a pang of conscience.

3. So if it does have life of some sort...where is the equivalency here? Single-celled organism? Insect? Small pet? See...here we are already getting into iffy territory. Because if you harm an animal, are cruel to an animal, torture an animal, perform deadly experiments on an animal, kill an animal - you are in serious trouble. That carries heavy penalties that sometimes make the penalties for harming human life seem trivial (do we need examples or can most people say they have seen this?). The point is that the life of a dog or cat can easily be said to have great significance to this culture. Even on films that don't have animals it is necessary to say that no animals were harmed in the making of this film.

Therefore, if we can agree that the way broader Western culture generally views animal cruelty is with a sterner eye than towards abortion, we are justified in saying that the unborn are viewed on the level (at best) of a pet. A dog or a cat. And probably lower. Thus...it is optimistic to say the unborn are considered no better than a small animal. But I guess if we are all animals, then what's the difference, right?

4. So that's it, isn't it? We're all animals, so what we do with an unborn animal doesn't matter. But again, why take such care in disposing of an "unborn animal" if that's all we are? To be honest, the brutality and cruelty engaged in by Planned Parenthood is just a logical end of the whole line of thought. Once life is so demeaned, why does it matter when we dispose of it and how we dispose of it? It isn't as if it's born and out on its own - so it's even less than one of us animals. So why is it murder to kill a baby after it's out of the womb but not to do so 30 seconds earlier while it is still inside the mother? Legalese. If you can avoid calling it "life", then you don't have to protect it. But our revulsion at abortion techniques is not misplaced because we know just as the abortion doctor with his implements of destruction knows - if it wasn't life, there would be no issue of conscience. There would be no question of how best to get rid of this mass of tissue. And since people who kill animals are sometimes now called "murderers" in popular culture (see recent death of "Cecil the Lion" as an example) the thought is already there that we are no better than wild animals. But we know, innately, that that isn't true. So it takes lawyers to assuage our consciences by modifying the definitions of "person", "life" and "murder" to suit our desires. Thus, "murdering a baby" can be changed (for convenience) into "aborting a fetus" and eventually becomes swallowed up in the comforting appellation "Pro-choice".

Reading the Declaration of Independence a little further, it is scary how such a behemoth as the power and authority of American government can be used to undermine its own mandate and make a 180 degree turn from its original stance and totally negate its own foundations :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The infant is such a threat to the safety of this nation that we need to get rid of them at the rate of more than 1 million per year. Yes...we think they are a threat to our personal "Happiness", but that is such a short-sighted, self-centred, egotistical viewpoint that the generation that believes that is simply hastening to its own destruction. Even basic biological truths should tell us that propagation of the species is fundamental to its happiness. But we don't think about others anymore. It's all about ME.

So in thinking through the insanity surrounding this issue, I am also struck by how many approach this as an issue of defense of the unborn. Well... it is in a sense. But that's just a symptom. Keep trying to save the unborn and you won't do a thing to correct the real problem that is causing all this death and destruction for those who haven't even had a chance to cry out (literally). No... the real issue is the basic idolatry that man is engaging in when he tries to condone this.

History will judge this tendency to self-destruction coldly. It will show how the exaltation of self..."my rights"..."me"...all comes at the (great) cost of exalting the virtues of self-denial and self-sacrifice for others. You can't have both. If you are on the throne then others don't matter. But if you will sacrifice all you have for others (including - and maybe especially - for the unborn child) then you foster the environment that made this nation great. Even just permitted it to maintain its existence. Until we return to that basic ethic, there is no hope of turning the abortion epidemic around. Until the hearts and minds of people are changed, babies will be murdered without just cause in horrific numbers.

We don't know what liberty is (as a nation) any more. But we do know (and drown ourselves in) license and indulgence. The lie that has been swallowed is that this is what the Founders fought and died for - so that we could sacrifice the country for our own desires, instead of the other way around. We know nothing of self-denial because that would strip us of our rights (or so we think). Contrarily, George Washington :

Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.

So not only is duty and sacrifice essential to maintaining happiness but looking outside ourselves is necessary to properly govern. Yet the same nation which was founded on this principle is attempting to cast out the very God and bible that was thought so necessary to rule. All on the pretext of "separation of church and state" and the idolizing of individual rights. Again...all this is just a flimsy excuse for self-indulgence. And anything that gets in the way (including children) needs to be taken out of the way.

That is the real problem. And that is the mindset that not only ennervates society generally, but the government that rules over it. We are creating our own tyranny and refuse to see it.

 

[Spitfire]

If you are for abortion, you are called "Pro-choice". This is almost euphemistic since it attempts to avoid the ugly truth and paint it with a seemingly positive brush.

Almost euphemistic?

It is completely, absolutely euphemistic and that, as you pointed out, is the whole purpose.

 

[PureX]

So much ignorant nonsense in one post! :up:

 

[Rusha]

In regards to the OP title, the word *choice* is intentionally used as a way to pretend abortion is no different than any other *choice* one makes.

It is THEIR word, when in reality, the correct term is pro-abortion.

 

[Rusha]

So much ignorant nonsense in one post! :up:

Only if you are *pro-abortion* ...

 

[badp]

So much ignorant nonsense in one post! :up:

The sad thing is, Nazi Germany was filled with people like you.

 

[nikolai_42]

So much ignorant nonsense in one post! :up:

I welcome your response. If you can follow my train of thought, where does it go off the rails?

 

[nikolai_42]

Almost euphemistic?

It is completely, absolutely euphemistic and that, as you pointed out, is the whole purpose.

Of course you are correct. I held back on the absolute simply because euphemism (in my mind) often is used in situations where one is knowingly and intentionally trying to whitewash the situation. I think it has gone past euphemism so that it's not quite a correct characterization (in terms of awareness and intent) but is probably more akin to political correctness (which is more frequently used reflexively and on a more subconscious level).

But that's a minor distinction. I have no problem saying the term is euphemistic in application.

 

[PureX]

Only if you are *pro-abortion* ...

No one is "pro-abortion". And lying to slander other people just because you don't agree with them is not going to help your case in any way. And if you ever want to see abortion mitigated in this country, you're going to have to deal with the majority of Americans who feel it should be legal under certain conditions.

Lies and slander aren't going to help you do that.

 

[nikolai_42]

In regards to the OP title, the word *choice* is intentionally used as a way to pretend abortion is no different than any other *choice* one makes.

It is THEIR word, when in reality, the correct term is pro-abortion.

I agree...but I think the "pro-choicer" would say that the term "pro-abortion" is too limiting. In other words, the issue in their minds is more the ability to choose rather than actually wanting abortions. But therein lies the self-deception that I have tried (perhaps without too much success) to expose

 

[PureX]

I welcome your response. If you can follow my train of thought, where does it go off the rails?

You welcome a response, but you aren't going to actually consider anything I would right. So tell me why I should bother, past what I've already posted?

 

[Rusha]

I agree...but I think the "pro-choicer" would say that the term "pro-abortion" is too limiting. In other words, the issue in their minds is more the ability to choose rather than actually wanting abortions. But therein lies the self-deception that I have tried (perhaps without too much success) to expose

I think it goes deeper than that. There is a negative connotation to the word abortion. They do not like being identified as supporters of abortion ... aka the killing of an unborn baby.

 

[PureX]

I think it goes deeper than that. There is a negative connotation to the word abortion. They do not like being identified as supporters of abortion ... aka the killing of an unborn baby.

That's because they are not supporters of abortion. They are supporters of a woman's right to make her own choices regarding abortion, under certain circumstances.

But I'll leave you all to your insult thread. Where you can all pat yourselves on the back for your superior righteousness.

 

[Rusha]

That's because they are not supporters of abortion. They are supporters of a woman's right to make her own choices regarding abortion, under certain circumstances.

THAT is supporting abortion.

The *choice* is to give life to the unborn child (anti-abortion) OR kill the unborn child (PRO-abortion).

Killing children should never be a choice.

 

[nikolai_42]

You welcome a response, but you aren't going to actually consider anything I would right. So tell me why I should bother, past what I've already posted?

This is my first time really getting into this debate in any significant way, so I don't know what I haven't considered that you've said.

But there is a line of thought here that can be traced. And if broken at any point I will admit that it makes the argument difficult to support (if not impossible). It's not a matter of accepting or rejecting anyone or what they say because I don't like it. But the logic of the matter does need to be seen. And the evidence is overwhelming that choice is at the heart of it. The right of "me" to choose. The rights of the individual have become so sacrosanct (somehow) as to purge the idea of personal morality as a civic duty (not just because "I don't want to hurt anyone"). Once upon a time, it was recognized that that morality was not only necessary to protect "me" but also for the general good of society. Not in the Marxist sense of the society itself being the greater good, but out of a reverence for life and the Creator of it (who was cited in the Declaration of Independence that I quoted from).

 

[nikolai_42]

I think it goes deeper than that. There is a negative connotation to the word abortion. They do not like being identified as supporters of abortion ... aka the killing of an unborn baby.

I actually think some might agree that they are supporters of abortion. But they would make that assertion subservient to the idea that they are for "a woman's right to choose". Not that they want to have abortion as something desirable in and of itself. Because when it comes down to it, I don't think (acceptance and even promotion of) abortion itself is the actual issue. It's only a grave symptom.

 

[Rusha]

I actually think some might agree that they are supporters of abortion. But they would make that assertion subservient to the idea that they are for "a woman's right to choose". Not that they want to have abortion as something desirable in and of itself. Because when it comes down to it, I don't think (acceptance and even promotion of) abortion itself is the actual issue. It's only a grave symptom.

Abortion, in most cases, is the reaction of the *choice* to have unprotected sex.

The women's right to choose should not include the right to harm (in this case kill) another human being.

 

[nikolai_42]

Abortion, in most cases, is the reaction of the *choice* to have unprotected sex.

The women's right to choose should not include the right to harm (in this case kill) another human being.

Yup.

 

[PureX]

This is my first time really getting into this debate in any significant way, so I don't know what I haven't considered that you've said.

But there is a line of thought here that can be traced. And if broken at any point I will admit that it makes the argument difficult to support (if not impossible). It's not a matter of accepting or rejecting anyone or what they say because I don't like it. But the logic of the matter does need to be seen. And the evidence is overwhelming that choice is at the heart of it. The right of "me" to choose. The rights of the individual have become so sacrosanct (somehow) as to purge the idea of personal morality as a civic duty (not just because "I don't want to hurt anyone"). Once upon a time, it was recognized that that morality was not only necessary to protect "me" but also for the general good of society. Not in the Marxist sense of the society itself being the greater good, but out of a reverence for life and the Creator of it (who was cited in the Declaration of Independence that I quoted from).

You have two major problems in blaming "choice" as though it were some evil phenomena. One is that we have choice by the very nature of our being. So if you believe that God created us, then God created us with the intent that we have the capacity to perceive, and therefor choose, between various courses of action.

It is God's intent that we humans choose our own actions from among the possibilities available to us. And to validate that fact, no human being has ever been given the ability to override that choice in another. We can alter and control some of the choices available to others, but we cannot make a choice for someone else without their assent.

The other major problem you have with vilifying choice is that God has placed no human above any other in terms of intrinsic righteousness. So that there are no humans or groups of humans who know the mind of God, and therefor have the right to dictate God's thinking to others. We are all equally ignorant when it comes to 'God's will' for us. Which then demands that we must each try and determine for ourselves what that will is. Again: choice becomes a divine mandate. Not some evil anomaly.

Human beings make up laws to help them live together in relative peace and security: laws that we don't murder each other, rob each other, misrepresent each other; etc.,. But we choose to obey these laws, or not to, each according to our own desires. And we as collective societies decide what these laws will be. And you can't even change the laws you don't like without getting the rest of your society to choose to agree with you. Which is probably why you don't like 'choice' in the first place. You would much prefer to just dictate to your society what they can and cannot do, and be done with it.

But God Himself has seen fit to give everyone the power of choice, and so you can't just dictate your will to everyone else, as you would want. Your beef with choice is really a beef with God. Not with those of us who recognize and appreciate God's gift of choice, to each of us, even when it means that other people will choose to do things that we really don't like or agree with. Or that we will make the wrong choice, ourselves, often.

The real problem with the anti-abortion people is that they just don't want to grow up and accept that God is God, and they are not. That God has deemed that we all have freedom of choice, whether we like the choices we or others make, or not. The anti-abortion people want to countermand God's freedom of choice, and force their own choices on everyone else. And I don't see how you can win when your essentially fighting God, AND the majority of your fellow Americans at the same time.

 

[nikolai_42]

You have two major problems in blaming "choice" as though it were some evil phenomena. One is that we have choice by the very nature of our being. So if you believe that God created us, then God created us with the intent that we have the capacity to perceive, and therefor choose, between various courses of action.

I don't see choice as the problem (itself) - rather the idolization of it, or rather the enshrinement of it as the pinnacle of rights. Our choices are supposed to be directed (not just guided, but informed and energized) by what is right before what is good for me or what I want. Today, the ultimate public sin is violating someone else's will - though even that isn't evenly applied (though that is another topic).

Bottom line, what is right trumps what I want (per God).

It is God's intent that we humans choose our own actions from among the possibilities available to us. And to validate that fact, no human being has ever been given the ability to override that choice. We can alter and control some of the choices available to others, but we cannot make a choice for someone else without their assent.

And just as He told the Israelites :

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deuteronomy 30:19

{Does this look familiar to anyone?}

So I don't have any problem that we are to choose life. But from scripture, I see that man's tendency is downward. Now, culturally, we have flouted God's law at our own peril - and called it "choice".

The other major problem you have with vilifying choice is that God has placed no human above any other in terms of intrinsic righteousness. So that there are no humans or group of humans who know the mind of God, and therefor have the right to dictate it to others. We are all equally ignorant when it comes to 'God's will' for us. Which then demands that we must each try and determine for ourselves what that will is. Again: choice seems to be a divine mandate. Not some evil anomaly.

God's will on this matter is simple : Thou shalt not kill {murder}

But extending the idea of choice to other matters of license, look at adultery, divorce (which God only "grudgingly" allowed for the hardness of men's hearts), "alternative lifestyles" etc... These all are examples of choosing "me" over public morality and - more to the point - God (returning to Washington's point about the necessity of God and the bible in governing a people).

Human beings make up laws to help them live together in relative peace and security: that we don't murder each other, rob each other, misrepresent each other; etc.,. But we choose to obey these laws, or not to, each according to our own desires. And we as collective societies decide what these laws ought to be.

And so by divorcing the rule of law from an ultimate lawgiver, you have - by necessity - made those laws mutable and subject to the whim of any individual in power. Which is a pretty good description of dictatorship (not the rule of law but the rule of personality). Hence, tyranny.

As to the assertion that society makes laws - when any society makes laws that violates God's laws (indeed, natural law), the inevitable result is predictable (the road we are heading down). God's laws are not without reason. They are not random declarations made because God felt like it - they are a reflection of Him and His character and preceding generations (up until early last century, at least) recognized at least that basis of law. Now, every man does what is right in his own eyes (choice). The only difference between that and society making laws is that we have societies doing what is right in their own eyes. Law is, by nature, absolute and fixed. When it becomes movable and can be redefined, it is no longer law but suggestion. And that's what happens when societies decide they can make laws themselves.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. Psalm 2:1-3

He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
Luke 19:12-14

And what does Jesus say will happen to those His enemies that rejected his RULE ?

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27

Looks like Jesus has a very specific idea about what rules ought to be.

And you can't even change the laws you don't like without getting the rest of your society to choose to agree with you. Which is probably why you don't like 'choice'. You would much prefer to just dictate to your society what they can and cannot do, and be done with it.

What you see as a governmental, political issue I see as a spiritual issue. You aren't going to change hearts and minds by changing the law (though you will drive the darkness underground where it should be to keep things in perspective). I'm simply showing how the secular mind today appears to be trending and why its enshrinement of personal choice as sacrosanct above all else (except those who say what really offends "me"...what "I" can't stand because it points the finger at "me" and says "I'm" doing something evil). It's not about me enforcing my will at all but showing the resistance to God's clearly declared will in His law.

But God Himself has seen fit to give everyone the power of choice, and so you can't just dictate you will to everyone else. As you would want. So you beef with choice is really a beef with God. Not with those of us who recognize and appreciate God's gift of choice, to each of us, even when it means that other people will choose to do things that we really don't like or agree with.

If someone says abortion is wrong and is the same as murder and shouldn't be an option because it is murder, how is that an offense to God? You are merely proving my point that society placed choice above God and His law (which serves to order society and maintain virtue) by focusing on this "gift of choice" over the fact that abortion is murder. Of course I don't like or agree with people murdering babies. What is worse is when government and society gets together and sanctions and tries to justify it. The motive for doing so is even more evil than the act of murder itself. It's about the heart. Remember who said this ?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:17-22

...and goes on to say this...

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 5:27-32

Where does Jesus elevate the "gift of choice"?

The real problem with the anti-abortion people is that they just don't want to grow up and accept that God is God, and they are not. That God has deemed that we all have freedom of choice, whether we like the choices others make, or not. The anti-abortion people want to countermand God's freedom of choice, and force their own choices onto everyone else.

And I don't see how you can win when your essentially fighting God, AND the majority of your fellow Americans at the same time.

God is indeed God...and if you think it is wrong to try and go against "freedom" in the name of protecting life so that the ultimate gift of choice can be preserved, you are simply proving exactly what I am saying. The God I am fighting if I do so is not the God of the bible. It is the modern God of self-service. I would much rather be against all of the American people and for God than the other way around.