Jump to content

Pro-Liars


SairB
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay - I guess I'm kind of putting my fanatic's hat on just now, but I figure this is the place to do it.

 

I've come to the conclusion that the so-called pro-life movement really just makes me angry, and I think I have good reason to be so. Admittedly I've recently added a large slug of fuel to the fire by reading the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry's page on the subject of abortion - the articles entitled 'A logical argument against abortion' and 'The battle over words in the abortion discussion' really stuck in my throat - but this rant is about more than just abortion, and the insidious roots of what I and many others prefer to call the 'pro-lies' movement go much deeper than this single issue.

 

However, abortion is a good place to start the rant, because it's the issue to which pro-liars give the most weight - more weight, apparently, than any other issue on earth.

 

Consider a few comparisons.

 

There are millions of people in the world - a few million of them children - living with HIV. But this is not, according to the pro-liars, a greater tragedy than abortion.

There are millions of people in the world - all sentient - suffering and dying in appalling poverty. But this is not a greater tragedy than abortion.

There are millions of oppressed women in the world who lack even basic freedoms like being allowed to leave their houses unchaperoned, let alone anything like reproductive choices. But this is not a greater tragedy than abortion.

And on a different note - but its significance should become clear later - there are billions of factory-farmed chickens - all sentient - raised in appalling conditions and slaughtered annually to feed consumers' desire for cheap meat. But this is not a greater tragedy than the abortion of a few million presentient embryos each year.

 

Simply put, these people lack perspective.

 

But that's not the worst of it. Their blinkered approach on this one issue displays itself in mighty feats of irrationality. CARM's 'logical argument against abortion' was little more than a repetition of the question, "Is the foetus human?" And this is not, ultimately, the point. Whether human or not, the foetus is, prior to a certain stage, not sentient, and therefore incapable of suffering. Unless you believe that human life has some special sacredness over and above other life, then aborting an early-term foetus is not an inherently wrong action. If not sentient, the foetus has no claim to moral consideration other than what its parents wish to give it - it is their interests, not the presentient foetus's nonexistent interests, that matter morally. So the supposed logic of the antiabortion argument completely breaks down if one adopts a non-anthropocentric perspective. This is why I believe factory farming - in addition to the other issues mentioned above - is of greater moral import than abortion, because it causes much greater avoidable suffering. I realise this is utilitarian reasoning and that some may object on that basis, but I think it can be sensibly applied in circumstances such as these, when there is quite an obvious line that can be drawn between those that are capable of suffering and those that are not.

 

So much for the easily-dismissed logical argument. More annoying is the terminology they wish to force onto any who argue against their opinion. This is outlined in the 'Battle over words in the abortion discussion'. I personally object to being labelled 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-death'. This implies that I think abortion is the preferred choice for any pregnant woman, and that is simply not true. I do, on the other hand, believe abortion should be available as an option. It is up to each individual to choose whether they take this option or not. As with every moral choice we make in life, we have to weigh options and decide if we can accept the consequences, but the pro-liars only want to remove any options that don't agree with their dogma.

 

And it is dogma that drives this movement - mostly Christian dogma. Because they believe humans are made in the image of God, and that God has ultimate control of their lives, they want to refuse the right to personal autonomy to every person faced with a life-or-death situation (human life, that is - no other life really matters to them). It is this fundamental belief that makes them oppose abortion, euthanasia, and even birth control (yet, strangely, not war...). They are not interested in the suffering of sentient beings - in fact, they believe that misery and suffering brings people closer to God, and should therefore be a cause to rejoice - I still remember being told as a child, when faced with something painful or difficult, to 'offer it up'. The pro-liars claim to be promoting a 'culture of life', when what they are actually peddling is a culture of living death - a culture in which people are not free to make moral choices about their own lives, and in which logic and reason give way to delusion and blind faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it is dogma that drives this movement - mostly Christian dogma. Because they believe humans are made in the image of God, and that God has ultimate control of their lives, they want to refuse the right to personal autonomy to every person faced with a life-or-death situation (human life, that is - no other life really matters to them). It is this fundamental belief that makes them oppose abortion, euthanasia, and even birth control (yet, strangely, not war...).

 

Some Christians do oppose war, notably the Mennonite, Amish and Friends denominations. They have a difficult time dealing with all the gawd-sanctioned war in the OT, though.

 

Whether human or not, the foetus is, prior to a certain stage, not sentient, and therefore incapable of suffering.

 

This was an easy change for me once I realized that Christianity is bullshit. No longer ascribing to the "sanctity of life" perspective, I see the issue of suffering, injustice and cruelty to be what matters the most in moral decisions. It is easy to understand that a fetus prior to having brainwaves doesn't have a sense of feeling, and therefore there is no cruelty issue to contend with.

 

I do still have more difficulty accepting late term abortions. I know that it's a complex issue and there are other factors involved. One of my current arguments against Christianity, though, is the OT commands to kill children, as well as one psalmist's comment about happily dashing infants against rocks. I'm not sure how I could point that stuff out as cruel while accepting as not cruel the termination of babies in the womb who are developed enough to feel, unless it were done with a painless injection.

 

But, anyway, I definitely agree on the earlier abortions not being cruel or immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And it is dogma that drives this movement - mostly Christian dogma. Because they believe humans are made in the image of God, and that God has ultimate control of their lives, they want to refuse the right to personal autonomy to every person faced with a life-or-death situation (human life, that is - no other life really matters to them). It is this fundamental belief that makes them oppose abortion, euthanasia, and even birth control (yet, strangely, not war...).

 

Or the death penalty..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ephymeris

I have so many reasons I'm pro-choice (not pro-abortion, who aborts for funsies?) involving the philosophical debates of the fates of the fetus but it pisses me off that most christian pro-lifers poo-poo the rights of the woman. I know they say they do this to protect the innocent life of a baby but like it or not, the woman's well-being is part of the picture.

 

Christians demonize the woman with the idea that somehow, her decision to dare to have sex (WHORE!) means she has somehow forfeited her rights to her life and the fate of the child. Whether stated explicitly or implicitly, most christian messages push the woman aside (she had her chance to make her choice to keep her legs closed!) and use the emotional arguments involving adorable babies.

 

Christians also try to make it seem like these women just arbitrarily use abortion for birthcontrol or convenience. I have had a few friends who have had an abortion and let me tell you, it was not easy or emotionally clean but in both cases it was probably the best case scenario for for everyone involved. I especially hate this argument when used with partial birth abortions because many of the sheeple christians just think this is a murder of a perfectly viable infant done for convenience sake. Babies that are taken using this procedure are usually suffering from horrible congenital deformities (not of the 6 finger variety, but the organs on the outside of the body variety), are still born, or will significantly endanger the mother. Again, christian beliefs and misogyny sneak into the prolife movement stating this is "god's plan" or that the mother should "trust god" that she won't die or give birth to a baby that is catastrophically deformed. Mom's just supposed to hang in there for that miracle...

 

 

Nevermind the fact that the ability to control birthrates using humane methods is a key factor in taking a nation from a third world mess to an industrialized world player and that a life sentance as (an unwilling) barefoot and pregnant woman is cruel to the woman and her offspring. Given the fact that most christians believe babies that die make a cosmic u-turn and head directly back to heaven, it is bizarre to me that they seem to value the life of an unborn baby above a fully (or close to it) developed woman who may be destined for hell.

 

This whole argument is so complicated, it makes my head hurt. I'm glad I'm not in a position (now) to have to make this decision but at the same time, I do NOT want strangers, politicians, and fascists telling me what they think is best for anyone's body or life on this intimate level. There are too many factors to invite strangers into this entirely personal decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have so many reasons I'm pro-choice (not pro-abortion, who aborts for funsies?)

 

What they expect us to say, "I do, I do! I get knocked up at least twice a month (it does get rather expensive) just so that I can go to Planned Parenthood and get an abortion. Getting an abortion is just so much fun!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I always find interesting in the christian anti-abortion (I prefer this to pro-life) arguement (I was actually thinking about this earlier today) is that the majority claim anyone who dies before a certain age (or level of knowledge) gets a free ticket into "heaven." Whereas were this child to grow up and live the life they would have, chances are they'd end up in hell. Taking this thought around, shouldn't they be pro-abortion? Then it's garuanteed the "person" will be in heaven.

 

But most christians consider human life far more valuable than anything else, and anyone over the "age of accountablity" has their choice, so the christians can no longer be blamed for said person's eternal burning in hell.

 

I never could get behind the whole anti-abortion thing - granted, even now I'm more likely to support adoption for women who are not in a position to raise a child, but I don't have any issues with those choosing otherwise. It's their body, and there's already far too many humans on the face of this planet, so it's not something I'm opposed to, either.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I've come to the conclusion that the so-called pro-life movement really just makes me angry, and I think I have good reason to be so. Admittedly I've recently added a large slug of fuel to the fire by reading the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry's page on the subject of abortion - the articles entitled 'A logical argument against abortion' and 'The battle over words in the abortion discussion' really stuck in my throat - but this rant is about more than just abortion, and the insidious roots of what I and many others prefer to call the 'pro-lies' movement go much deeper than this single issue.

These people are such hypocrites.

According to the Bible God, the deity that Christians claim controls the universe and establishes moral absolutes, abortion is perfectly acceptable if a husband suspects his wife is pregnant by another man.

According to God's holy law, specifically the law of jealousy, a wife must submit to a trial by ordeal to determine her guilt if her husband simply suspects her of adultery.

If she is guilty and carrying a baby, the fetus is flushed via miscarriage.

This is a law of God (Num 5:11-31).

The husband has the right to terminate a fetus if he suspects his wife to be unfaithful and she is guilty.

Also according to God, who determined the monetary value of human life (Lev 27:1-7), men are worth more than women, and children under 1 month of age have no monetary value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I've come to the conclusion that the so-called pro-life movement really just makes me angry, and I think I have good reason to be so. Admittedly I've recently added a large slug of fuel to the fire by reading the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry's page on the subject of abortion - the articles entitled 'A logical argument against abortion' and 'The battle over words in the abortion discussion' really stuck in my throat - but this rant is about more than just abortion, and the insidious roots of what I and many others prefer to call the 'pro-lies' movement go much deeper than this single issue.

These people are such hypocrites.

According to the Bible God, the deity that Christians claim controls the universe and establishes moral absolutes, abortion is perfectly acceptable if a husband suspects his wife is pregnant by another man.

According to God's holy law, specifically the law of jealousy, a wife must submit to a trial by ordeal to determine her guilt if her husband simply suspects her of adultery.

If she is guilty and carrying a baby, the fetus is flushed via miscarriage.

This is a law of God (Num 5:11-31).

The husband has the right to terminate a fetus if he suspects his wife to be unfaithful and she is guilty.

Also according to God, who determined the monetary value of human life (Lev 27:1-7), men are worth more than women, and children under 1 month of age have no monetary value.

 

The argument I really want to throw back in their faces (but haven't as yet, since it would involve joining yet another forum, is that their antiabortion rhetoric only makes logical sense if one holds human life to be sacred, a gift from God, yada, yada.

 

Some problems with this notion, from their perspective:

Most Christians hold the sanctity of human life to be self-evident (though they don't often seem to think through the full implications of this premise) - it doesn't usually occur to them that secular thinkers (the very people they should be trying to convince if they want antiabortion laws passed) may not take this view. I have yet to encounter an antiabortion argument that addresses this issue. CARM's supposedly logical argument against abortion

- that if the foetus is human, it's wrong, and the foetus is unquestionably human - actually begs the question, "Why does the nature of the life matter?"

 

 

It seems the Biblegod understood that there might be compelling circumstances where the taking of life - even human life - was the lesser of two evils (at least in principle - I certainly don't agree with the specific reasons given!). Self-defence has generally been recognised as a compelling reason. But the thing is, humans make these decisions all the time about nonhuman life without batting an eyelid. Most people don't even think about the decision involved. If more people did think seriously and logically about the relative value of lives, and why those values are applied, I think the antiabortion movement would lose a lot of ground. I can think of many reasons a woman might choose to have an abortion, and they are all more compelling than the reasons a person might choose to, say, eat chicken every other day. Both these decisions involve the taking of life. Yet it's not the large-scale suffering of factory-farmed chickens that features on the pro-liar agenda, but the ending of a single, presentient human life that cannot suffer. Go figure, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument I really want to throw back in their faces (but haven't as yet, since it would involve joining yet another forum, is that their antiabortion rhetoric only makes logical sense if one holds human life to be sacred, a gift from God, yada, yada.

 

Some problems with this notion, from their perspective:

Most Christians hold the sanctity of human life to be self-evident (though they don't often seem to think through the full implications of this premise) - it doesn't usually occur to them that secular thinkers (the very people they should be trying to convince if they want antiabortion laws passed) may not take this view. I have yet to encounter an antiabortion argument that addresses this issue. CARM's supposedly logical argument against abortion

- that if the foetus is human, it's wrong, and the foetus is unquestionably human - actually begs the question, "Why does the nature of the life matter?"

 

 

It seems the Biblegod understood that there might be compelling circumstances where the taking of life - even human life - was the lesser of two evils (at least in principle - I certainly don't agree with the specific reasons given!). Self-defence has generally been recognised as a compelling reason. But the thing is, humans make these decisions all the time about nonhuman life without batting an eyelid. Most people don't even think about the decision involved. If more people did think seriously and logically about the relative value of lives, and why those values are applied, I think the antiabortion movement would lose a lot of ground. I can think of many reasons a woman might choose to have an abortion, and they are all more compelling than the reasons a person might choose to, say, eat chicken every other day. Both these decisions involve the taking of life. Yet it's not the large-scale suffering of factory-farmed chickens that features on the pro-liar agenda, but the ending of a single, presentient human life that cannot suffer. Go figure, I say.

In my opinion you can't argue with people who have a God that always agrees with them.

Sacred "life" means whatever they want it to mean and killing is always justified when they want it to be.

God killed the infant of David and Bathsheba and it wasn't self defense, but punishment for David.

However, killing this baby was fine because God did it.

Babies were killed by the Israelites, in pre-Exodus Egypt, and in the flood.

But that's ok because God wanted it that way.

If Christians want abortion and baby killing to be wrong, then it's going to be wrong.

And when they want killing to be justified, it'll be justified.

I don't think it's going to make a speck of difference what arguments you use to show otherwise.

Their entire mission is to jam their version of God and "morality" into every aspect of society.

They couldn't care less if others disagree because they have God on their side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument I really want to throw back in their faces (but haven't as yet, since it would involve joining yet another forum, is that their antiabortion rhetoric only makes logical sense if one holds human life to be sacred, a gift from God, yada, yada.

 

The thing I've thought about recently regarding the doctrine of "sanctity of life" is that it really doesn't seem to be biblical. Well, I guess they do have the "in the image of God" text to claim, but then there's God commanding Israelites to kill children and infants, laws for stoning children to death, God inspiring a psalmist to write about happily dashing infants against rocks, and laws allowing slavery. How the hell does that square with "sanctity of life"? And why the hell didn't I ever think about that back when I was a believer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The thing I've thought about recently regarding the doctrine of "sanctity of life" is that it really doesn't seem to be biblical. Well, I guess they do have the "in the image of God" text to claim, but then there's God commanding Israelites to kill children and infants, laws for stoning children to death, God inspiring a psalmist to write about happily dashing infants against rocks, and laws allowing slavery. How the hell does that square with "sanctity of life"? And why the hell didn't I ever think about that back when I was a believer?

 

From what I've noticed from personal experience is that believer's segregate loving God from what they euphemistically call righteous (read bloodthirsty) God in their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I've thought about recently regarding the doctrine of "sanctity of life" is that it really doesn't seem to be biblical. Well, I guess they do have the "in the image of God" text to claim, but then there's God commanding Israelites to kill children and infants, laws for stoning children to death, God inspiring a psalmist to write about happily dashing infants against rocks, and laws allowing slavery. How the hell does that square with "sanctity of life"? And why the hell didn't I ever think about that back when I was a believer?

 

I remember having it 'explained' to me once that God stopped being the jealous, vengeful type once he sent Jesus down and Jesus made a 'new covenant' with his followers. This made some kind of sense to me at the time (mostly, probably, because I hadn't read much of the OT, which makes it quite explicit what a nasty piece of work Yahweh really was...)

 

But to believe that, you have to swallow the notion that a god supposed to be eternal, perfect and unchanging suddenly underwent a radical personality alteration! What's up with that?!

 

And I think there are also plenty of secularists who subscribe to the concept of the sanctity (some prefer to call it 'fundamental dignity' and the like) of human life. However, they don't have the easy recourse to a god to back up this claim, and so might be more susceptible to reason on the matter. If there is no characteristic that all - and only - humans possess that is not shared by at least some other animals, surely the difference in the way we treat other animals (in terms of ignoring their basic needs and interests in order to satisfy our desires) is speciesism, pure and simple. I know it sounds bizarre, on the face of it, to say so, but once you think it through, it makes a lot of sense. However, that's a subject to which I've devoted another post altogether, so I'll say no more about it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that if religious pro-lifers were serious about ending abortion the would use their political clout to supply support for those mothers that feel that they cannot support a child or another child. They would also campaign to end the stigma of being a single mother on welfare. These women who supposedly are bearing the ultimate gift from God are treated like shit. What is with that? For that matter if God is so concerned about abortion why doesn't he rain a little manna down upon the needy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I always find interesting in the christian anti-abortion (I prefer this to pro-life) arguement (I was actually thinking about this earlier today) is that the majority claim anyone who dies before a certain age (or level of knowledge) gets a free ticket into "heaven." Whereas were this child to grow up and live the life they would have, chances are they'd end up in hell. Taking this thought around, shouldn't they be pro-abortion? Then it's garuanteed the "person" will be in heaven.

 

 

Once during bible study class at my parents' church, we were having a debate about the morality of God's action in Exodus and I asked if it was ok for God to murder babies, then does that mean abortion is ok? One of the fundamentalists responded by saying no because God didn't command it. The other night I had gotten into a debate over abortion with my dad who was ranting about how hypocritical Obama was for being pro-choice and a Christian. I asked him where in the bible it says abortion is a sin. He quoted the usual thou shalt not murder versus but I asked him where in the bible it says life begins and that the soul enters the fetus. He never gave me an answer and instead ranted about how he didn't need to prove a fetus was a life.

 

This is what it all boils down to. For the majority of anti-abortion Christians, it's not about facts or evidence or even the children. It's all about dominance and control. This is not to say that everyone who is pro-life is only in it for control but this is what the bulk of anti-abortion Christians only care about; enforcing their reilgion on women and controlling people's bodies. It's not about the children at all. If it was, they'd be out their adopting kids and not banning orhpans from finding a good home because the parents happen to be gay or a single parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I've thought about recently regarding the doctrine of "sanctity of life" is that it really doesn't seem to be biblical. Well, I guess they do have the "in the image of God" text to claim, but then there's God commanding Israelites to kill children and infants, laws for stoning children to death, God inspiring a psalmist to write about happily dashing infants against rocks, and laws allowing slavery. How the hell does that square with "sanctity of life"? And why the hell didn't I ever think about that back when I was a believer?

 

I remember having it 'explained' to me once that God stopped being the jealous, vengeful type once he sent Jesus down and Jesus made a 'new covenant' with his followers. This made some kind of sense to me at the time (mostly, probably, because I hadn't read much of the OT, which makes it quite explicit what a nasty piece of work Yahweh really was...)

 

But to believe that, you have to swallow the notion that a god supposed to be eternal, perfect and unchanging suddenly underwent a radical personality alteration! What's up with that?!

 

Not only that, but the proof-texts they use to support the "sanctity of life" come from, you guessed it, the Old Testament. So writing off the texts opposing sanctity of life on the basis of them being from the OT is a bit ridiculous, isn't it?

 

It's strange how I used accept that line of "reasoning" by trying to compartmentalize things, but after stepping away from the faith and looking at this rationally, it really doesn't make any sense.

 

If there is no characteristic that all - and only - humans possess that is not shared by at least some other animals, surely the difference in the way we treat other animals (in terms of ignoring their basic needs and interests in order to satisfy our desires) is speciesism, pure and simple. I know it sounds bizarre, on the face of it, to say so, but once you think it through, it makes a lot of sense.

 

That doesn't sound bizarre at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about the children at all. If it was, they'd be out their adopting kids....

 

This one thing I would have to disagree with. To really think that one has to be able to adopt the children to have any real care for them would mean that one can't oppose any form of child abuse unless he/she is willing and able to adopt. Not everyone can afford (or would be approved) to adopt or would have the time to take care of the children, but that doesn't mean that they can't have an honest concern for the children.

 

[Edit: But, of course, regarding those who can adopt, you're right in saying that they should do so if they really believe what they claim.]

 

...and not banning orhpans from finding a good home because the parents happen to be gay or a single parent.

 

Logically, I agree, but of course such christians are acting out of their warped worldview. I wouldn't say that that proves that they don't care about the children, it's just that they have "priorities" that marginalize these particular people.

 

That being said, there are christians who would approve of a single person being able to adopt a baby that would otherwise be aborted (I would have when I was a believer). They wouldn't consider it an ideal situation, but still a more viable option than abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.