The Illogic of the "Right" to Abortion: Do Women REALLY Want the "Choice" to Kill Their Own Babies?

"But it's a human being" says the show host. "So is the woman," says the "pro-choice" guest. And she wants to be sure that THIS human being's "rights" are protected. It's considered a great evil and something women will vote against, to deny them this "right" to abortion.

Obviously they just aren't thinking this through. Even some on the "pro-choice" side will admit that yes, we're talking about a living human being in the womb here, but they go right on past that to assert that the woman is ALSO a living human being and HER rights count TOO, or even MORE, and so on and so forth, just sailing right on past the implication that they are advocating KILLING that OTHER human being in order to protect the woman's "rights" (and often these days killing it in viciously brutal ways too, even when the child is near to being born).

Do women REALLY want the right to commit MURDER? I don't think so. I think we've been sold a lie, and a great ideological fog has descended over this issue.

Do we have such murdering hearts? There was a time, and in fact it may still go on in some parts of the world, when unwanted infants were put out to die after birth. If they'd had safe means of abortion they'd no doubt have killed their babies that way, but infanticide was the option at the time. I think it's hard today, even for the most committed "pro-choice" advocate, to imagine doing that with a clear conscience, one has to imagine a completely other mental set than we have grown up with today in a western society, to commit out and out murder of an infant. Don't most of us want to rush to the abandoned infant and save it and protect it? I think we do. Yes, even the "pro-choicers" do.

We can SEE the humanness of the born infant and can be moved by its plight. But we are committing that same murder in abortion nevertheless, only we're hiding it from ourselves because the unborn baby isn't visible. Truly it must be "visible" in a certain sense to our "mind's eye," but ideology has twisted things so that we ignore that picture. We keep the focus on the woman and her "rights" and manage to fog over the fact that this "right," this "choice" that is being advocated in such tones of righteous indignation is in fact a right and a choice to commit the killing of another human being -- and not just some anonymous human being either, whose life we should want to protect anyway, but your own flesh and blood, your own child. Even when they seem to acknowledge this fact they run right past it showing they haven't really let themselves think about its implications. We don't dare stop and think too hard about that these days, we must preserve it as a "woman's" issue, a "right" or a "choice."

Sometimes you'll hear someone say in serious or even mournful tones that whether or not to abort a baby is a very "private" and "personal" decision, and a very "difficult" choice that people must make, not something to be done lightly. Which superficially seems to acknowledge the moral dimension of the problem, but if you REALLY think it through, it's like saying "It's a very difficult personal choice to kill a human being, and we should respect people's privacy about such an important decision."

Why is it this is not recognized as what is really being said? Because we're not allowed to think it. Ideological fog.

Even the child of rape or incest is a human being. If you know that how can you grant the "right" to kill THAT child either?

Again, knowing that, recognizing that, is what doesn't happen because the propaganda, the ideology, operates to prevent it.

It's sad when an unwanted child is conceived, whatever the reason for its not being wanted. It's sad for the child and it's sad for the parent or parents. It is a hardship for some women when that happens, although face it, for most these days it's not really a hardship, it's more an inconvenience, and yet murdering it is considered the "righteous" thing to do.

The whole thing goes back to the promotion of "sexual freedom" of course, but that's another topic for another time --but I'll mention that you might want to see Chris Pinto's film The Kinsey Syndrome for some insight into that evil movement that is destroying America. A stable prosperous society requires traditional marriage and traditional laws that confine sex to marriage.

But right now I just want to keep the fact up front that abortion kills a human being, and that women are NOT being done any favors by being given the "right" or the "choice" to commit murder. There are plenty of stories of women who later regretted having had an abortion, to the point of deep depression over it, when the truth of it got through to them. This is the TRUE heart of most women.

We've been sold a lie.

Righteousness Exalteth a Nation: Hang in there on the social issues, Republicans

The Republican platform is on the right track:

ABORTION:
The party states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." It opposes using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. It says the party will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage.

Since abortion, euphemistically referred to as "the right to choose" ---(since when is murder a "choice" in any civilized country?)-- is popular --(remember, that's MURDER that's popular),-- the pragmatists are likely to feel this is suicide for the party.

By that reasoning a nation would always be promoting sin and unrighteousness until it is utterly destroyed. Which does seem to have been happening in America over the last half century.

Abortion is certainly a major reason this nation is in disfavor with God, so that a Republican win could begin to turn the tide and bring His blessings back to us. The beginning of the needed repentance.

No, it's not the Economy, dear Church

Or it is but focusing on the economy is useless. God's in charge of the economy. God's in charge of all of it but so many Christians are only looking at the specifics, how to deal with this or that problem, not consulting God. This is what's wrong with the nation. It's why we are where we are, facing the problems we're facing, given the undesirable options we have. It's why we have a wannabe Hitler running against a Mormon with a Catholic running mate (and let me be clear, I think Ryan is a GREAT guy), having passed over the evangelical he could have had instead.

You want to change the economy? You want God to bless our "basket and our store" instead of allowing a drought to destroy it?

Read Deuteronomy 28. Sure, it's to Israel as a special covenant nation but do you really think its principles don't also apply to all nations including America? Do you really think that stuff "just happens" for no good reason? Well, I suppose most people do. But Christians shouldn't. A nation that obeys God will be blessed, but cursed for disobedience.

Proverbs 14:34: Righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.

We need to stop trying to solve problems exclusively from the human perspective. The nation is under judgment. If there's any hope of turning it back we need to turn the nation back to God. That's called "repentance."

Back to the God of the Bible, of course, not the God of the Mormons, not the God of Rome, not the God of Islam, not the God of the Deists or the Unitarians or the Universalists or the Liberal churches, but the God of the uncompromised Bible. He's the true God, the others are counterfeits.

Drought reports: No Relief In Sight but is God considered?

No references to God in the headlines, just the bad news with no hint of hope for a way to make it better.

Where is the America that would have known this is God's judgment and whose leaders would have called for days of fasting and repenting for the nation's sins?

Light on the Treaty of Tripoli and the Christian nature of America

For all the clear signs of our being under God's judgment there are moments these days when it seems God's hand of blessing is upon us in extraordinary ways too, bringing cause for hope His mercy will triumph over judgment in the end, or at least mitigate it, maybe bring us revival here and there. There's a small army of Christians out there working to straighten us out and working to bring the truth to light. We're sometimes at odds with each other, which is sad, which must be for God like herding cats at times, but if anyone can herd cats God can.

Anyway, the latest harbinger of hope I'm seeing comes from Chris Pinto's ministry, as it often does these days. On today's broadcast he reports his recent discovery of a Christian voice from the time of America's founders, objecting to Congress' passage of the Treaty of Tripoli which contains the controversial statement that confuses and horrifies so many Christians, the statement that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

This is another of those ghosts from the past that can be dispelled by having a stronger light from history shone on it than we usually have available, like the quote from Richard Henry Lee I reported on in the previous post. Lee was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and his statement that Chris Pinto also found recently goes a long way to clearing up an important dispute about the original intent of the Second Amendment: He affirms that the "militia" referred to in the amendment means ALL the people, trained in how to handle guns, from which people a separated army may be drawn without in any way infringing on the whole people's right (and obligation) to possess arms.

Today the ghost of the supposedly nonChristian nature of the United States as defined by the Treaty of Tripoli is finally brought into question by Chris Pinto's discovery of one Christian from the founding generation who opposed Article 11 which declared that the American government was in no sense Christian. It was hiding in plain sight:

From Wikipedia on the Treaty of Tripoli:

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United States.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.[3]

At least one member of Adams' cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry, is known to have protested the language of article 11, prior to its ratification.[5]

And here's the footnote to the above quoting McHenry on his objection to Article 11:

5.^ James McHenry to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr., September 26, 1800:“The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that 'the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.' What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion.”[4]

And here is the Wikipedia article on James McHenry He was

a signer of the United States Constitution from Maryland and the namesake of Fort McHenry. He was a delegate to the Continental Congress from Maryland, and the third United States Secretary of War (1796–1800), under presidents George Washington and John Adams.

It helps a great deal to know that there was some Christian dissent to that article among the leaders of the day, which otherwise gives the impression that it spoke for the entire founding generation.

===
August 1, 2012: Today's show continues this subject of the Treaty of Tripoli and the founding generation in general, what freedom of religion meant and so on.

DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT Pt 2

Dr. A who is a regular poster at EvC forums, whose Course in Geology is often quite good but whose other posts are usually not worth reading in my opinion, has just posted a really amazing piece of sophistry on the thread about Gun Control.

Don't arguments about overthrowing the government cut both ways? I mean, if it is possible for a bunch of private citizens with guns to overthrow a tyranny and replace it with a democratic republic, then wouldn't it also be possible for an armed citizenry to overthrow a democratic republic and replace it with a tyranny? There is, after all, nothing particularly bullet-proof about democrats.

Uh yeah, but there would be no MOTIVE to overthrow a nontyrannical government. When there is such tyranny you can be sure there will be plenty of buzz leading up to any sort of action, such as was the case before the American Revolution. Where there is no popular motive to overthrow a government the people's possession of guns nevertheless acts as a deterrent to the development of such tyranny, and in any case provides protection against garden-variety criminality which is going to be a problem in any society, less in one where more guns are owned by citizens.

And in this context I might as well respond to a statistic that keeps coming up on that thread to the effect that America has more guns per capita than any other nation on earth and YET we have more homicides too, so that the guns are not acting as a deterrent. Well, consider the fact that there were NO guns in the possession of audience members when the theater in Aurora Colorado was invaded by a homicidal maniac. Had there been even one or two he might have been stopped in his tracks and many lives might have been saved. Same with all the mass murder scenarios we've been plagued with over the last couple of decades, such as at schools. There should be armed teachers, armed members of churches, just more armed citizens out there in the world in general, if the homicide statistic is to be reduced.

Case in point is the situation of the internet cafe in Florida where just a couple weeks ago a 71-year-old man in possession of a legal concealed gun DID rout a couple of robbers, one of them armed, who might have done harm to many except for him. Moral of the story: It doesn't matter what the statistics say, obviously we need MORE upright citizens carrying guns.

So, yes, it might be a good idea if the Chinese had more guns, but what about the USA? If our citizens have enough weaponry to overthrow the government (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument let's say they do) then since we are currently a democratic republic, what they would be doing would be overthrowing democracy in favor of tyranny. Since we currently have liberty, guns can not currently be used to give us liberty, but to take it away; if it is possible to use them to overthrow the government, they are not a bulwark of liberty but rather a threat to it.

Sure, we may not have enough citizen-owned guns to pull that off, but again, why would anyone want to if we are truly the democratic republic he says we are, that provides that we "currently have liberty?" Of course there are those who would dispute that characterization of our current situation, but obviously there isn't enough motivation OR citizen gun power, either one, to do anything about it. But again, it is only if enough recognize that the government is NOT "a bulwark of liberty" that any such use of citizen firepower would be attempted. It would probably have to reach the level that even Dr. A himself would agree that tyranny is indeed the proper word for the situation at hand.

To conceive of guns defending our liberties, we have to be thinking two revolutions ahead. Once someone has taken our liberty away, then maybe we could use guns to put it back. But right now, since we have liberty, they can only be used to take it away.

On this basis, whether or not guns are good would depend on the state of the particular nation in question. In China, perhaps they could be a force for liberty; in the USA, they imperil it.

Silly sophistic distinctions, Dr. A, just word games. It's possible to be under government tyranny and it not be recognized by a majority because it hasn't yet reached a certain level, but the most likely scenario is that it WILL be recognized if it reaches a level that pinches the majority, and then it would be very sad if we'd already succumbed to government confiscation of the people's guns or laws that violate the second amendment by imposing extreme restrictions. Overthrowing the government is of course the remotest of all the reasons for an armed citizenry when you HAVE an armed citizenry, but it could rapidly become urgent and immediate if guns were taken away.

=================
The common feeling is that the more guns the more danger, the opposite of course of the reasoning behind the second amendment that the more guns the less danger. Here onifre at EvC is arguing that in New York city jar's position that guns should be carried openly would be extremely dangerous.

Have you seen the subways? Have you seen the amount of people in those things daily? Can you not see how maybe in this particular case, unlimited open carry (like in a holster) is a terrible idea?

Unlimited Open Carry does not mean that there must be no limitation.

Hmmm...

but it does mean that if someone carries it should be open, displayed

. Again, that's a terrible idea where I live.

The more guns the more fear of danger, but is the fear realistic? The founding fathers apparently thought the opposite and in fact statistics that I've heard of seem to bear them out. When guns are confiscated crime goes up, not down, and when guns are owned by a majority the reverse occurs. This makes sense. Criminals generally are not going to want to risk being shot.

I haven't given it thought before now, but I don't think I'd want guns to be carried openly as a matter of course. Better that the criminals have no idea how many guns might be drawn against them than be able to make their plans around the ones they can see and possibly avoid the danger. Keep them in the dark.

So, are there no upright citizens that ride the subways, Onifre? If everybody is a potential homicidal maniac wouldn't there still be a deterrent to their inclinations in the fact of more guns versus less?

But if you specifically have openly visible guns in mind, as I say above I probably wouldn't think that the best situation, but still, if most people had them I would think it would have some deterrent effect rather than be the danger you think it is.

DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE TRUE CONTEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT SHOWN IN QUOTES BY EARLY AMERICAN LEADERS:

Chris Pinto is continuing the subject of gun control in today's (July 27) broadcast The Second Amendment Some topics covered: UN aim to disarm the world, means the average citizen. + Pinto believes it's basically Rome's attempt to reinstate a worldwide Inqusition. + He gives quotes from American leaders that make clear what the Second Amendment was really all about, which contradicts today's attempt to disarm the people.

Quotes Blackstone on the law. + quotes Jefferson on necessity of armed citizens for protection against criminal acts. + Mentions a video at You Tube How to stop a massacre which shows a recent real-life incident in which an armed citizen routs a couple of robbers who were threatening people in an internet cafe. +

Quotes Patrick Henry on need for force to protect liberty, advocating that every citizen have a gun. + Quotes Noah Webster on how the tyranny of state armies is thwarted by the arming of the citizens. + Quotes a journal in Boston in 1769 calling for citizens to be armed against British military abuses of power. English Bill of Rights invoked as authority. Mentions Blackstone's commentary on the law. Natural right of self defense. + Bible references +

Quotes George Mason 1775 militia plan, pledge to keep arms in readiness + Patrick Henry on protection of liberty by all citizens being armed + Sam Adams natural rights to life liberty and property and right to defend them. + John Adams arms for defense of country, ovethrow of tyranny or private self defense. +

As Pinto says "It's so clear what the second amendment was intended to mean" if you read the writings of these early Americans, "its purpose clearly extended to private citizens", and yet the second amendment has been "twisted and manipulated and lied about" by people trying to find a way to destroy it. + He ends with a quote from Richard Henry Lee in 1788 which ought to put to rest all the anti-second-amendment stuff about what a militia was supposed to be:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

The importance of knowing history is demonstrated in this quote. I've been in all kinds of discussions about what the second amendment means and nothing like this came up, which should have silenced all that nonsense about a militia being an organization or an army. The idea always seemed to contradict the very soul of the second amendment which is the right of the PEOPLE to defend themselves, but without proof of the original intent of the founding generation the gun control people were always winning the debates. We need more Chris Pintos.
============================
Later edit:
Typical "liberal" view of the second amendment:

... what you CAN construe is that the National Guards of the various states are the modern militias in question, organized and trained by state, armed, organized and disciplined by congress ... and the place where civilians can enroll to get proper training and then keep and bear arms. The second amendment is curiously silent on whether or not these arms can be taken home, presumably leaving that up to the states that are running the National Guards ( militias), and it is also silent on regulation of general gun ownership, again, presumably leaving that up to the states, a position that is upheld in the supreme court.

In light of the quote of Richard Henry Lee given above, such an opinion is completely out of tune with the original intent of the founding generation. Any official army, even the National Guard, is an entity that can become a force of tyranny on behalf of the state against the people, the very people the second amendment was intended to protect against that very kind of tyranny.

The second amendment is not "curiously silent on whether these arms can be taken home" since it accords to "the People" the right to keep and bear arms.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution was what inspired the interpretation quoted above:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If this section is intended to define or qualify the "militia" as set forth in the second amendment, then it must refer to the totality of the People that Congress is called to organize, arm and discipline, as opposed to "such Part of them" as a separate unit to be employed in the service of the United States... The singling out of such a Part implies a much greater totality which is not so employed -- that is, of course, ALL THE PEOPLE.