« What is the Deal Between Parks and Mannix? | Main | Evil Genius in Texas »

April 02, 2006

Of rabbit trails, abortion, choice and genocide

I could have just added this to comments in response to our newest commentor, Stubblespark (Welcome, incidentally. And I hope you'll come back often to comment). But I decided to put it up as a post.

I made that decision mostly because I think this is an important discussion..and I'd like to see it dealt with that way.

Keep in mind that my response began as a comment. Its a direct response to one of Stubblespark's comments but a general response to the entire set of arguments. Stubblespark's comments are italicized in advance of my responses.

------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, congratulations on your pro-limited-choice views. You said the first trimester is probably okay for abortions because the organism that will develop into a human does not demonstrate notable human traits like sentience and the capacity to feel pain.

Why are congratulations in order? I'm curious.

Unfortunately, murder is not wrong because the person you are killing is wide-awake and not sleeping, unconscious or comatose. Nor is murder wrong because it is painful. It is wrong because human life is sacred.

Why is human life sacred, but the life of a dog is not? Why is a horse's life not sacred? Why is plant life not considered sacred?

As Christians, we believe human life is sacred because it is a supernatural gift from God. Life is powered by the force we call the soul. The soul is related to sentience, but the soul is NOT sentience (otherwise, sleeping and death would be the same). Therefore, if we are unable to determine sentience but we are able to verify humanity, we are compelled by moral and natural law to refrain from harming the pre-born.

As a Deist, I believe you are free to believe and exercise your beliefs in the way you see fit. I would fight for your right to do this to my dying breath. But as a Deist, I don't believe the same way on this issue that you do. I'm curious, would you fight for me to believe and exercise my beliefs?

Second, I am sorry you think my "little list" of genocide criteria was a waste of your time. In my defense, it is not my list but Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which was adopted by resolution 260 (III) A of the U.N. General Assembly on 9 December 1948. Like I said, I am kind of dumb, so I need help from things like this.

One reason I chose to leave Christianity is the snide attempts at guilt for expressing myself that was put upon me by so many Christians. Thank you Stubblespark..for your candid reminder of that reason. As to your definition of genocide, I submit that the Geneva Conventions and those who drafted them would take severe umbrage at your stretched use of their definitions.

Perhaps I was too unkind in trying to explain how the episode of Appalachian abductions also count as genocide as well. I apologize for insulting your intelligence. That little bit came from a book called War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black, a self-proclaimed prochoicer.

In this extremely well-documented book, Black provides detailed page after detailed page of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood's active participation in the providing the technical buildup for Hitler's masterplan -- a fact that to this day is not addressed or apologized for by the good folks at PP.

Planned Parenthood (as a named organization) didn't come into existence until 1942. I'm assuming you're referring to the organization under its previous carnation of the American Birth Control League. Having not personally read "War Against The Weak",I can't speak to it directly. But I did read some excerpts on Amazon. You're referring to eugenics, which was supported by many of the time--including Alexander Graham Bell. While I am foursquare against the notion of eugenics, shall I no longer use a telephone because of his previous association with a lousy idea? Especially since the folks at the phone company haven't apologized for their guy supporting eugenics?

I submit that targeting the poor for sterilization as a proclaimed eugenicist at PP is substantially the same as targeting the poor as a non-proclaimed eugenicist at PP. The only difference being the proclamation of affiliation with eugenics (which still enjoys a broad following among doctors and biologists in America this day) while the act in all its intentions and consequences remain exactly the same.

I submit that targeting the poor for sterilization as a proclaimed eugenicist at PP is substantially the same as targeting the poor as a non-proclaimed eugenicist at PP.

Submit all you like, but that doesn't make it correct. You start from the assumption that everyone whose affiliated with PP is a eugenicist, whether they say so or not. That's like me saying that every Catholic is a pedophile because a bunch of bad Catholics molested kids. Neither is correct.

Finally, I was not implying that prochoicers do not teach values to their children. I was explicitly stating they have fewer children to teach them to. Prolifers generally also abstain from contraception and have large families. There is a very wonderful article on this with population stats and historical analysis (though with the abortion issue very toned down) in this month's Foreign Policy magazine. You may read the article at the following address:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story3376.php

The prochoice/prolife child rearing statements are silly, in my opinion. I was raised by two anti-abortion parents. I'm strongly prochoice. So is my brother. There is no guarantee that parents can brainwash their kids into following their beliefs..whether they be anti-abortion or prochoice.

I have yet to see anything here which demonstrates any appropriate correlation between abortion and genocide. The very definition of genocide is to wipe out a particular race, nation, political or ethnic group. My motivation for choice is none of those..and I submit that there are very few who are, relative to those that support choice.

Posted by Carla at April 2, 2006 10:32 AM