The Logic of Life

It never ceases to amaze and frustrate me the capacity normally intelligent, nice people have for rationalising the clinical murder of children.  It’s horrific, and deserves no less than to be stated horrifically.

Allow me to preface my frank assessment of the moral bankruptcy of the proposal that we sanction infanticide as a state with the caveat, “This isn’t about you.” Don’t make this about you. I’m not condemning post-abortive parents. I’m not condemning abortion providers, lobbyists or supporters. I believe the ancient wisdom that says if you’ve broken any part of the law, you’ve broken all of the law. That means no one is better than anyone else, as we can all agree that nobody is perfect. Yes, that means that outside of a Divine impartation of forgiveness and grace, the best of us is no better than the worst of us – objectively speaking. There is healing and redemption for all victims of the real and evil enemy, abortion itself.

The USA President Barack Hussein Obama has forced Government welfare (and the substantial cost thereof) upon his subjects in the liberal-loving form of “Universal Health Care”.  Sounds lovely and noble, doesn’t it?  But this post isn’t about that, per se.  Rather there is an example of the utter failure of pro-abortion logic therein.  According to this marvelous piece of oppressive liberal bureaucracy, you must enrol the children you are pregnant with, along with the rest of your family, in this compulsory health insurance scheme. This is an acknowledgement of their life, their opportunities, their needs and their legal personhood.

The breathtaking failure of justice and betrayal of fundamental and inalienable human rights is openly displayed, then, when the same “health” insurance scam will then fund the clinical murder (abortion) of that very same child, and millions more like her.

So here are some of the “logical” arguments I’ve heard from normally intelligent and nice people on my personal Facebook wall, with last names removed.

“There are always two sides.”
– Don

ARE there always two sides? Paedophilia? Rape? Domestic violence? Child incest? Cannibalism? Homicide? Genocide?… Infanticide!

The violent &, in this case, permanent imposition of one person’s needs / wants upon another is justified, where else, in law & social conscience?

There are two sides only as much as there are two valid & important people affected – a mother and a child. Except I’m advocating for the one who’s not consulted about their choice, whose higher right to life is trampled.

“If abortion were illegal, women with unwanted pregnancies would seek out home remedies. They would try to induce abortions using methods they had heard on the grapevine, passed from person to person, or order abortion-inducing pills online and take them at home. Some would take the wrong amount, or at the wrong time in the pregnancy, and end up hospitalised. If abortion were banned or further restricted, these trends would only accelerate. There would be more shady clinics, more solo chemical abortions and home remedies, more women jailed, more miscarriages investigated, more pregnant women seeing their health take second seat to that of their fetuses.”
– Libby Anne (care of Don)

All of those assertions above are utter nonsense – and NONE justify murder.  Making abortion illegal VASTLY reduces the number of abortions conducted. Making murder legal is just reprehensible, and beyond a civilised society.  By the logic of those assertions, nothing should be illegal as people will do it themselves just as often, but with greater risks to their supremely important selves.  Therefore it follows that we should not only legalise rape, murder, cannibalism, drugs, & theft, but we should clinically facilitate the practice thereof.

And that agent of murder calling them foetuses does not change the baby’s humanity, their life reality, nor the tragedy of their apparent social disposability.

“Clinical murder..interesting term..so are you calling doctors and nurses murders?”
– Eloise

If you take the life of a person, what do you call it? (No answer was given).

The hippocratic oath dates back to 5 BC. It was revised in 1948 following WWII. The original declaration stated that a doctor would respect human life “from the time of conception,” and the 1994 revision stated “from its beginning.”  2000 years of the finest medical traditions and consciences held all human life as sacred and to be protected at every stage. Very recent relativistic regressions have violated & eroded that standard.  Do I shrink back from calling the wilful termination of life in a clinical environment murder?

No.  The only exception would be where it was incontrovertible that failure to do so would cost both lives.

“Well thanks very much but I’m not a murderer. Doesn’t it say in the bible thou shalt not judge? Speaking of hypocrisy…”
– Eloise

Don’t quote the Bible unless you can say where in it you actually read it. More often than not such people are making it up, as in this case. Prove me you’re right & cite a chapter & verse.  (No answer was given.)

So given that you’ve judged me, & based it upon a myth, albeit a popular one, I will respond factually.

The overriding communication of the Bible is primarily that the Law of God is black & white, that sin is wrong, and the lines are immovable. Not only does the Bible not say “Thou shall not judge”, it DOES say “Thou shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17 & 1 John 3:15). It does specifically so that we CAN, objectively, judge the difference between right & wrong.  So if it then prohibited using such knowledge to discern such distinctions as guilt & innocence, the Bible would be hypocritical. 

So in summary, you’re arguing that killing innocent children is not murder, but that the Bible is hypocritical for defining wrong and, allegedly, banning communication of such knowledge.

Let me now reassure you I’m not condemning YOU, as opposed to abortion. Everyone is guilty, it doesn’t matter of what. That means before accepting the price of Christ’s death for our guilt, we are all guilty of breaking the Law. I’ll cite the chapter & verse to be consistent – James 2:10.  So no, Eloise, I don’t “judge” in the way the Bible actually does warn against.  But abortion is the wilful termination of human life, no matter which way you spin it. There is very appropriate, common word for that.  Every person involved is spiritually & emotionally hurt by abortion, no matter their involvement, & deserving of Truth first, as well as healing & forgiveness, equally available to all through Jesus.

“Until you have walked in the shoes of these women none of you have any idea of the turmoil these women go through. I now know the difference between a nurse and a Christian..nurses care unconditionally…”
– Eloise

I’m sorry that’s how you judge Christians El, truly. I argue with you not to condemn you, but because you justify / rationalise wrong, which is as offensive as if you were advocating paedophilia. It equally violates the innocent child’s rights, violently instead of sexually. You have to harden your heart an incredible amount to participate in the termination of an unborn human’s life, & so I feel as much sorrow for the abortionists as I do for the parents & the baby. You’re all victims of this evil.

Is the life saver callous & judgemental if he clearly flags the boundaries of safe swimming? Is a parent hateful if he tells his kids to not play on the highway?

Is the nurse compassionate & caring if she advocates swimming outside the flag in the rips & currents; and the highway is a great place for kids?

Wrong is wrong, life is life, & disregarding either is the most damaging & cavalier approach to patient care possible. And to not say so unequivocally would be equally uncompassionate for a Christian as it would be to an adult human health care provider.

Boundaries are loving. I love you as much as I love babies, but I cannot fail to advocate for their right to look their mummy in the eyes that first time & I condemn the act of extinguishing a lifetime of potential. When your heart softens one day, remember there is unconditional forgiveness & healing in Jesus.

“When my heart softens? Get stuffed. Oh please… I could argue this towards my point of view but I couldn’t be bothered. It is my job to care for people without judgement or opinion… it’s called unconditional caring.”
– Eloise

I hope you don’t really believe your job requires no judgement. You can’t argue it and that’s why you don’t. There is no rational basis for prioritising one person’s health over another person’s LIFE. Killing babies isn’t caring for them. In ANY other consultation every healthcare provider considers the mother & baby as two patients, not a patient & a parasite. So where is the patient care for babies?

Logic fails pro-abortion arguments because it’s a failure of logic, & that’s why the majority of them resort to attacking the person they’re debating with instead of the ideas.

Your education is vastly superior to mine, El. Be my guest & prove why preborn people aren’t deserving of equal patient care in every instance, why their life is less important than everyone else’s, & why duty of care is irrelevant if you choose to kill her.

Is fetal alcohol syndrome an abuse, but abortion not? Is assaulting a pregnant mother causing miscarriage manslaughter, but abortion not? Is the 24 weeks pregnancy delivery when baby is wanted deserving of NICU, but not deserving of the most basic, fundamental human rights when she’s not wanted?

Abortion is a complete abandonment of logic, ration, conscience & science.

Go ahead & furnish me with your best arguments that terminating human life against all better judgement is unconditional caring.

“What about if the baby has fetal alcohol syndrome to the point where the child will never lead a normal life and bringing it into the world would be cruel?”
– Eloise

I notice you ignore most of my logical arguments & make but one point. So do you advocate putting people down like animals? What do you think? What if that person was 1 month old, & life was “cruel”? What if they were 1 year old? What about 10, or 20? What if they had led a healthy life & some sudden accident or disease suddenly made life “cruel”? Would you advocate putting them down then? Or is it only in the womb you think babies are not quite human, not quite alive? (No answer)

My answer: “Every life is precious at every stage and worth defending.”

“And please don’t insult me. I have worked my arse off to help others and make a difference in this world and I don’t need an extremist like you to have a go at me. You got your opinion and I got mine so let’s leave it at that shall we?”
– Eloise

What insult? Calling wrong “wrong”? I understand why that would offend, but it’s not reasonable to protest that. It’s not opinion. It’s objective Truth. It’s morality. It’s ethics. It’s values. But defending an innocent person’s right to life is not a mere opinion. Is it extreme to defend the fundamental human right of existence? Or is it extreme to perform ethical gymnastics to defend the right to take someone else’s life? All the good deeds in the World combined don’t erase your bad ones, only Jesus does that.

“I get up everyday and try to make a difference in this world and make peoples lives better. I don’t need any validation from you.”
– Eloise

If you have committed abortion, you have ended a human life. If you defend what that really is, I will be the voice of the victim. I’m sorry for how that offends you. I will also care for your hurt & healing as a victim of this tragedy, but it is not compassionate to pretend abortion is anything less than a reprehensible wrong, & that is exactly what society is doing. I’m not trying to invalidate you, but abortion. Abortion seeks to invalidate tiny people, I seek their validation. This isn’t about you unless you make it so. Abortion is the enemy, not providers or parents. But abortion is not something that should be made to sound nice or acceptable. It is violent, permanent, & confronting.

 

You either believe the tiny preborn person is a human life, or you deny ALL scientific consensus. Not a majority – ALL. You either champion a woman’s right to choose, or a tiny person’s fundamental human right to life itself. It’s actually very simple, very uncomplicated, and very obvious. Every human life is precious & to be defended at every stage. The semantics are very clear, the tangents very few, & the arguments very short when you treat a baby like a human being & not like a piece of disposable property.

 

So Alison or Kate, logically, can you please list again the reasons it’s okay to kill a baby; & logically explain at what stage/age a human life *is* equally valued to yours, & how that line is reliable, ethical, & not arbitrary?

The only thing I can think of more tragic than losing one life is losing two. Not losing a choice (to kill) – a far inferior “right”. One more tragedy has never solved a previous one like rape (<1% of abortions). One plus one has never equalled less. It’s two. Always will be.

And to the best of my knowledge, no genuinely medically necessary abortion has ever been denied to the actual cost of a mother’s life in any western nation, & is certainly not being proposed by the vast majority of pro life activists.

“You’ve suggested that people without intelligence support abortion. I have intellect and support abortion. And actually, there is a lot of tolerance to the child and the mother who’d I’d never judge. Being born isn’t the issue, it’s the life they could lead, it’s not just a matter of a few months it’s DECADES. Funny thing is that a life has the right for a chance, HOWEVER, if the best chance for them to lead the best life isn’t available it can be the wrong time for that soul to be here.

If an available life isn’t one that would be the best available for that child and mother it’s selfish of the mother to have them from guilt because you say so regardless of circumstances.

You’re saying that it’s logical that after being beaten, stabbed, gang raped and drugged by diseased criminals, bearing a child is logical?!? Please, [I’ve] met some of the people that do that and [can’t] think how their sporn [sic] could be worthy, or that a straightforward procedure isn’t more traumatic than having their nails torn out, stabbed and repeatedly raped.”
– Alison

Such horrifically barbaric morality posing as compassion & concern!  Your attitude in deeming yourself qualified to determine who is worthy of life, what is the right time for a soul to be here, what type of life is worth living, to narrowly qualify worthy lives only if they meet your definition of the best available, to disqualify right to life based on parentage – your attitude is absolutely no variation on eugenics & Arianism, the moral rationalisations of one of history’s most vile & evil characters.

“Selfish to have a baby from guilt” is upside down logic. The natural guilt attached to abortion is from violating the fundamental human right to life. The alleviation is from upholding someone else’s fundamental human right to life, & that is COMPLETELY the opposite of selfish. It is selfless & noble.

You’re saying that after being violently violated by someone against her will, her suffering is somehow diminished or shortened by more violently violating someone else’s very life, or that someone’s emotional anguish justifies an innocent third person’s death!

I don’t doubt you have intellect, but your arguments are completely devoid of all logic & compassion & reveals a conscience seared beyond sensation. Attitudes like that justified Auschwitz, & the extermination/sterilisation of disabled people. It is beyond reprehensible that you feel such attitudes have any place in humanity.

“You don’t know a thing about me nor my compassion, nor it seems what logic actually is through reading what’s been written for what it says, not what you assume it says. I did not say an abortion would end suffering of a woman raped, you think that regardless of her situation she should just bare that baby and be what, happy about it? Funny part is I also never said I was qualified to dictate a solution for ANYONE, I’d simply never judge anyone for the choice THEY make. I know if and when im in the situation it would not be one taken lightly to ensure the best life for ALL involved.

You’re finding it easier to assume I’m evil. You see its easier to pose from a moral high ground, how about what’s real. What happens now. How it really is. You make all these statements that remove all opportunities of choice for women under all circumstances yet offer no solution nor conclusion whatsoever for the 75+ years of life afterwards. Have you actually been around people who this has happened to? You may feel it’s evil, but it is a necessary one.”
– Alison

Lady, I read what you type. No assumptions, you put it in black & white. Quote my allegedly false assumptions and number them, and I will quote your words to demonstrate you implied/inferred it first with corresponding numbers.

You justify murder with rape. YES, I think regardless of any circumstance (other than saving a life) it’s wrong to take a life. The only time the whole world doesn’t agree is when that 3rd person is in the womb! What’s the difference? Not science – science says that’s a human life. It’s morally bankrupt values that say a foetus is property and not a person, and then only when inconvenient, not when wanted.

I personally know a few people who were conceived in rape, and their value to the world and right to life is not determined by subjective tests and circumstances – hence the term inalienable rights, which LIFE certainly qualifies as for every living human.

You didn’t SAY you were qualified, you just inferred it by asserting who qualifies: semantic irrelevancy.

You wouldn’t judge anyone for the choice they make? That again is reverse logic. If you judge someone for being conceived in rape [quote: “met some of the people that do that (beaten, stabbed, gang raped and drugged by diseased criminals) and think how their sporn could be worthy“], how dare you again infer that another person judging the ACT of murder is somehow unfairly judgemental. Such brazen, unmitigated hypocrisy!

Morals aren’t subjective, they aren’t situational, and to take the moral high ground (as you label defending life) isn’t invariably ignorant or unsympathetic to reality.

You criticise removing “all opportunities of choice for women” as though it’s a supreme good, far exceeding all opportunities for EXISTENCE, and have the audacity to act insulted by slights to the capacity for intelligent debate of pro-abortion advocates.

To oppose slavery is not to dismiss the subsequent life of not being fed, clothed and housed by the slave’s owner. Nor is opposing abortion automatically disqualified unless one can plan the next 100 years of each child’s life. Such a straw man is another utter logical failure of many pro-abortion contenders.

You have absolutely NO justifications for murdering a child that could be equally applied to a 2 year old, and thus it is self-evident that your premise is the reduced value of a preborn human’s life based entirely upon their stage of life.

 

And no.  At the time of publication there has still not been an answer.

 

Every human life is equally valuable and to be equally defended at every stage.

 

So what do you think?  Are you for or against readily abortion on demand, and why?  What arguments have you come up against for the wholesale slaughter of our children that stumped you, if you’ve been brave enough to take on such debate opponents?  Let’s be real about this issue – not politically correct, not sanitised, not safe.  The right response is to be sickened, upset, and proactive.  A million Australian babies have been clinically murdered since the Sydney Olympics, enough to fill the MCG (stadium) every year.  We owe them whatever it takes to save the next million, the next individual.

Comments are welcome, but as usual, please keep them focussed on the topic and not people – if in doubt, read the moderation guidelines.