-->

Monday, November 26, 2012

An Illogical and Foolish Argument and the Battle for the Youth by Amber Masterson




Included in this blog are references to Dennis M. Howard’s article “Economic Impact of Abortion.” I would highly recommend reading his article in full and sharing it with others. I thank Mr. Howard for giving me permission to use a small portion of it for this blog. 


I felt compelled to issue a response to a pro-abortion blog which I recently stumbled upon. I have only pulled out a few parts however (in purple), because I feel these issues specifically, are not discussed enough in the abortion debate. This particular blog was written in 2009 and posted to a site aimed at educating the youth. 

 “The politicians “pro-lifers” so ardently support are only after one thing: self-interest. The majority of them are not “pro-life” because they agree with you; they are because they know you will continue to vote for them—and they know that making women remain pregnant not only takes away their power, but it also keeps them busy, in line, controlled, as well as a baking factory for their failing economy. The more people they have to rule over, the more they have to work and buy. Period.” 

You have to appreciate the imagery here. Women lined up on an assembly line having tiny babies inserted into their womb by some mechanical apparatus; controlled probably by greedy white conservative men, looking for more people to dominate, control, and extract taxes from. The message being sent out to kids: stick it to the man; undermine the capitalist system by aborting your children. 

However, for once I do agree with a “choicer” on something. Most pro-life politicians are not wholeheartedly pro-life. They tend to leave behind the 1% of abortions that take place due to pregnancies that result from rape. Many self-proclaimed “lifers” make this exception, and it pokes a huge hole in pro-life logic. If all life is precious and worthy of protection, wouldn’t a child conceived in rape be equally precious and worthy of protection? Pro-lifers who make this exception undermine their stand. No one is going to take seriously circumstantial moral arguments. If it is wrong to unjustly, and brutally dismember a pre-born human life, it is always wrong, even when that pre-born human life was conceived in rape. The rape exception is what led to abortion on demand, and it is not going to undo it.

But the author’s more remarkably noteworthy admission here is that of a failing economy.

Since Roe v. Wade, about 55 million pre-born citizens have been aborted, a number that increases by about 1 million a year. 

On the economic impact of abortion Dennis M. Howard writes “The estimated loss in U.S. GDP already exceeds $38 trillion -- more than twice our current national debt. That's why, even if abortion ends tomorrow, it will still take more than a generation to recover.”  

With an increasing number of individuals making more demands for Government programs and entitlements, the population loss becomes more evident. Who is going to support the cost of such Government spending? Or more to the point, how is Government going to make up for the loss? 

Dennis M. Howard goes on to write As baby boom nurses and teachers retire, we face a looming shortage of 1 million nurses and 2 million teachers. We also face critical shortages in key professions such as science, medicine, and higher education."

 "Abortion and more efficient birth control together have wiped out about half of our future human resources. With a growing number of older baby boomers in need of critical care, the only way to ease this crisis is to end abortion or drastically reduce health care for the elderly. Liberal politicians would rather cut Medicare than adopt a pro-natalist policy that would restore demographic balance.” 

Not all abortion advocates will admit to the social economic consequences of abortion, but you can be sure they are waiting with an answer to the problem. Today it is abortion, tomorrow it is infanticide and euthanasia; all legislated through government healthcare. There is a reason for the rhetoric we hear. More critical, is that the youth hears it, and hears it often. It is important the culture accepts the principle that some are lesser than others. It is the standard that will be applied to all persons, in or out of the womb, when rationed care makes such distinctions an economic necessity.

 Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one’s daughter, rape someone, or keep a person as a slave—all things that are promoted in religious text.”

I almost didn’t know where to begin with this gem of an argument. I wonder if the author actually bothered to do any research before she posted this, or considered her own hypocrisy. The Declaration of Independence states quite plainly who guarantees our right to life, liberty and property; and let me clue you in, it didn’t come from Government. But let’s look at this within the context she has provided us.

If she had actually read the Constitution she would know that the 13th amendment prohibits slavery.  And yes, it is a crime to rape, sell children, and own slaves. Is she suggesting that the religiosity of these beliefs make them immoral laws? If it does not violate ones conscience to rape or own a slave, should we allow it? By this logic, no one should be prohibited from acting out on their own free will, regardless the harm to another human life. Since we are discussing abortion here, it makes perfect sense that this would be the underlying ideology. 

This is progressive and pro-choice logic being very honest about its intent, and selling it to young kids. 

The fact that she employs the word “immoral” reveals secularism is in itself is a sort of religiosity, possessing a greater relevance and moral superiority than other forms of religion; forcing all other beliefs to take a back seat.  

Reproductive restrictions do not end with abortion. Many people also argue that contraception itself is wrong—another mainly-religious philosophy—and will deny women the protection they need based on this belief. There are legislative acts that allow actual pharmacists to deny women their birth control because of their beliefs; does this not violate the Hippocratic Oath, especially if thousands of women are on birth control because their very lives depend on it? Also, since it is my belief that men should not rape women, if I were a pharmacist, would I have a right to deny a man his Viagra just in case he uses it to rape? You never know.” 

In 2009 when this blog was written, the HHS mandate was still in the works. What’s so revealing in the argument is the level of malice toward the exercising of one’s conscience.

That is quite a change from the author’s previous assertion, that it would be unfair, unjust and immoral to impose on others anything which violates their religious beliefs. 

We do as citizens have a right to exercise our faith, and our conscience. This means just as well, that if it violates your conscience to pay for abortions and contraceptives, the Government should have no right to mandate that you do; or otherwise threaten you with suffering some sort of civil consequence if you don’t.  

What is this author telling kids about their right to their own beliefs? 

 “Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant. If a law would never, in any circumstance, apply to a man, a man creating that law is preposterous. It is akin to men creating laws that ban women from voting, owning property, or showing skin in public—only much more deadly.” 

I will get on board with this one. Roe v. Wade was determined by 5 out of 9 male judges; throw it out! 

Doctors, not governments, should always be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we even consider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.”

This is an incredible argument from a group of people that just voted to uphold a law that gives government the power to regulate the health care industry. The ones who will suffer the most are the sick and the elderly who need actual medical care. This argument reveals the sheer hypocrisy and uninformed nature of pro-choice logic. I would submit pro-choice is fine with Government having the authority to determine what types of treatments are available to us so long as they are getting free birth control out of the deal. 

In my estimation, the pro-choice arguments presented here conclude that freedom without restraint and something for nothing are more valuable than religious freedom, a stable economy and human life. So I must concur wholeheartedly; it is illogical and foolish. 

But pause for a minute and think about who these arguments are being directed toward. This is the bill of goods being sold future generations by the culture, and the media. A "me first" ideology that cares little for the value of human life, or the preservation of a moral and just society. This is not a battle that is going to be won by political negotiations. We will not abolish abortion until we change the culture, and the most difficult battle we face is for the youth. 


“Self is ingenious, crooked, and, governed by subtle and snaky desire, admits of endless turnings and qualifications, and the deluded worshippers of self vainly imagine that they can gratify every worldly desire, and at the same time possess the Truth” – James Allen




1 comment:

Anonymous said...

WOW!!!! Keep on exposing the total absurdity and evil behind the abortion supporters! God told us, "Truth will set us free!"