Sunday, April 1, 2012

A is for - Angry Abortion Advocates And Amoral Activists Are Always Anxious to Avow Any Anal Arguments for the Assassination of Amorphous Anthropoids.


(Title Translation:  Who are you to judge me for throwing away a glob of slimy jelly?)

When presidents speak, there are consequences.  Do you remember when Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sex relations with that woman.?"

With those words (and that lie), a whole generation of young, brain dead children redefined the word "sex."  I will not get graphic in details here; suffice it to say that the term, as it is now commonly used, refers to only a very specific single act and everything else is not.

President Obama had His own share of careless and idiotic blurts with consequences.  On the subject of abortion, this one statement was especially repulsive.

"If my daughter makes a mistake
and ends up pregnant,
 I wouldn't want to punish her with a baby!" 
Barack Obama
 
In one of my many sarcastic moments, I posted this reaction on Facebook. 

"It's too bad Obama's mama didn't have access to free contraception; she got pregnant and the whole country has been punished for her mistake."

That was a little bit shocking to a couple of my readers but hey, the president deserved a little disrespect for suggesting that babies are punishment for mistakes.  And the underlying implication is that mistakes can be corrected and punishment avoided by killing the baby.  End of problem; He should have known better. 

On the other hand, some people are just ignorant and might be changed through education and reasonable discourse. 

One day I found myself in an online discussion about abortion.  Following is the debate that occurred between an anonymous proponent of abortion and me.

Anon:    If you are against abortion you better be for medical/food and housing assistance or you're a hypocrite.
 Me:     Hey!  You're kidding, right?   I'm against mass infanticide so I have to agree to the government taking what I earn and giving it to others who do nothing.    If I were to say that I was against abortion and then secretly participated in aborting a child, that would be hypocrisy.  Interjecting the need for medical/food and housing assistance is a strawman argument.
But why not try this one; it seems to be consistent with YOUR twisted logic:

If you favor abortion as a means to minimize medical/food and housing assistance, and you oppose the mass destruction of those who are unproductive and on public assistance, then YOU are a hypocrite.
Anon:     I certainly don't think abortion is an answer to minimizing public assistance.  I agree with abortion because:
1. I don't believe it's killing a human (it’s not like women who are 6 months along are lined up outside Planned Parenthood)
2. I think it's a decision between a woman and her doctor. I also agree with feeding/housing and medical assistance but that’s beside the point.  You got to (sic) admit that it's pretty hypocritical to only care about a child while it’s in the womb.  When it’s born it can starve or whatever I guess… if you don’t want an abortion you don't have to get one.

 Me:     Okay, I get it. You just don't think an unborn baby is a human so it’s alright to kill it.  What is it then?  Is it a tumor, or a cancer, or is it a hemorrhoid?

 Anon:      It's a fertilized egg that looks like jelly.

A ten week old fertilized
 egg that looks like jelly
Me:     In as little as eleven or twelve weeks after she was conceived, she was less than two inches tall and almost indiscernible, every single one of her organs had begun to function. By that time her little heart had been beating for almost eight weeks. She was breathing (fluid) and her little brain was already coordinating the movements of her muscles and organs. Her taste buds were formed, milk teeth had appeared and she could swallow. Her stomach already had working digestive juices. Her liver was producing blood cells and her kidneys were functioning.

She could bend her tiny little fingers (already engraved with her own unique prints and equipped with nails) around objects and she possibly was already a thumb sucker.   She could squint her eyes, knit her brows, smile and frown.   She urinated and had bowel movements.  She slept, dreamed and awakened. Her body was sensitive to touch; she could feel pain and heat, she reacted to light and noise, and she was able to learn things.
I’d say that’s pretty impressive for a little jelly-filled egg, don’t you think?

Anon:     Not really.  I watch Discovery Channel and enjoy books about nature.  Nature is way awesome. Since you think life begins at conception there is no discussing with you.  If I said let’s move the abortion deadline to six weeks you'd still find a reason to protect that little jelly baby ‘til it was out of the womb.  Then you would prefer to let it starve opposed to giving it food assistance.   That makes 0.0 sense to me but whatever floats your boat.

Me:     What do mean, "not really?"  So you watch Discovery Channel.  What does that have to do with anything I said?   And where did I say anything about my opinions or my beliefs?
I simply pointed out the objective FACTS about the development of an 11-12 week old “fetus” (which is derived from the Latin word, foetus meaning, little baby or offspring).  I know FACTS are stubborn things that get in the way of our preconceived ideas but you need to take the facts as they are and then interpret your ideas and fix your beliefs on truth.


What I wrote is verifiable - you can check it out for yourself.  And by the way, the fact that it is alive is also verifiable and observable.  If, after your research, you still choose to ignore the facts and believe that it is just a little lifeless glob of jelly, then go for it.  You can destroy it without any thought for conscience sake.
On the other hand, the truth might cause you to change your thinking.
 
One more thing; the presence of hungry and needy people in this world is irrelevant to this topic.



 Anon:    I was just saying that it's not that amazing to me.  Because I watch Discovery, I know how awesome the world is so I don't get amazed often.  I wasn't saying your facts were wrong.  You have as much of a chance of changing my mind as I do yours (lol).   I believe in abortion and you don't.  It’s that simple.
Jelly Baby
And the presence of hungry and needy people in this world is relevant to this topic.  It actually gives us a good glimpse into someone’s mind when he disagrees with abortion but then agrees to allow children to starve/freeze or go without medical treatment.  If you can't see the hypocrisy in caring about life only while it’s in the womb, I don’t know what to say.  Now if you don't believe in abortion and you want to feed/house and give medical to children congratulations.  Unlike 99% of Americans, you put your money where your mouth is!  I believe in abortion and food/housing/medical for all children but I also believe abortion should be legal.   Some could even say that is hypocritical and I'll own that because it kinda is but not nearly as hypocritical as people against abortion and against helping children survive.  

Me:     Okay. You have convinced me.  So let’s just kill ALL babies.  That way we can be assured that NONE of them will ever go hungry or homeless.  None of them will ever be beaten or neglected by their parents.  None will ever become addicted to narcotics.  None will ever get cancer.  None will ever live long enough to be abused by a spouse.  None of them will ever be a burden on the public.



Seriously, though, think about this.  Just this past week there has been some discussion among medical ethicists about the subject of "fourth-trimester abortions" (yep, you read that right, fourth trimester). Their point is (and I agree), if it is legal or if there are justifiable reasons (like parents who cannot or are unwilling to provide for the care of a baby) to kill a child in the third trimester, then there is no justifiable reason to make it illegal in the fourth. There is no difference between a baby in the womb (or partially in) and one who is outside the womb.

So much for that "reasonable discourse" stuff.  Anonymous acknowledges that his argument sounds hypocritical but his revealing (and startling) comment was "you believe that life starts at conception and I don't."  Regardless of verifiable and observable evidence, he willfully chooses to ignore the facts and believe his convenient lies.
When we lose our moral compass,
any direction is as good as another.




For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.   Psalm 139:13-15

4 comments:

Pumice said...

Our churches are full of people like this. They also deny that a loving God would send anyone to hell.

It all comes down to denying the "T" in TULIP and the existence of Original Sin is something we can agree on.

Grace and peace.

Ralph M. Petersen-Always Right; Sometimes Wrong! said...

Pumice, you're right.

I am mulling over an idea for a blog post about all the various Christian myths that have become "doctrines" of biblical illiterates. God not condemning anyone to Hell is one of them.

Ellery said...

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

I just want to slap people like ANON. But that wouldn't be nice.

Ralph M. Petersen-Always Right; Sometimes Wrong! said...

Hey Jon, you're right. That wouldn't be polite. But Anon probably would have been okay if his mommy had aborted him. You think?