Here is a question I’ve seen posed many times and in many ways when it comes to abortion (or marriage, for that matter):
“Why is it that the United States is one of the very few countries where large numbers of people insist that their religious views become the law of the land?” (Source)
Answer: because the religious view is the just view.
Don’t defend your “religious” beliefs directly. Go straight to justice. Make it an argument about justice, and how your religious views on the matter uphold justice better than the alternatives. That is one of the points of religion, after all. See, for example, Micah 6:8:
He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
God cares very much about justice, so make the argument about justice.
I need some help. I’m not really sure how to classify myself. My mother got pregnant with me when she was 19. She and my dad (and me of course), went to Mexico to get an abortion. When they got there, the abortion doctor told her that she was too far along with me. So they walked in to get an abortion, and walked out with me still intact. So it’s not as if I survived an actual abortion attempt. But it was pretty close. I want your input:
Should I call myself an abortion survivor?
Does it fit? I like it since it gives me some quick-credibility in the discussion. On the other hand, I don’t want to mislead anybody into thinking that I underwent an attempted abortion procedure and survived it.
So I’m not really sure if a qualify to use that label. But it would feel really great to be able to say something like this:
I’m an abortion survivor and I think you’re full of shit for supporting abortion. Your support for abortion is as if you are saying to my face:
“I’m totally fine with you not even being here. I’m fine with your body being burned until you die with saline, or torn apart limb from limb, then thrown into the medical waste like trash or sold for medical research. Because #freedom!”
Do you know what it’s called when your freedom costs somebody else their life? It’s called war. You send innocent human life into “battle” to die for your “freedom.” It is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. You don’t have a right to something that can’t be guaranteed–you never had a right to pregnancy-free coitus. Your cry for freedom is a cry to remain immature and irresponsible. Stop advocating for the slaughter of the unborn and grow up. You never had a right for pregnancy-free coitus. If you don’t want to bring a child into the world, then don’t have sex. It’s really and truly that simple.
Yep, that feels good, gratifying, honest.
Here’s Gianna Jessen, giving testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in 2015. She was born alive during a saline abortion. Obviously, she qualifies as an abortion survivor:
Maybe I’ll use the label, and if anybody questions it, I can link back to this post. What do you think?
One strategic mistake my side of the debate has made is to ignore the divorce issue. The top leadership on my side almost totally ignores it, and I find this not only discouraging, but logically problematic. They just leap over it as if it wasn’t there. I mentioned this before when I wrote about the conservative preference for the children of gays.
Let me distill it as well as I can. Here is how the two issues are related:
Abortion is like no-fault divorce in that the State annuls people’s familial obligations to others who are legally innocent. In both processes, the State has failed to provide any legal means to defend against the process. The process happens at the behest of one party (Party A: petitioner in a no-fault divorce action; woman seeking an abortion) who claims that the process is needed to secure their “liberty” from the other party (Party B: respondent in a no-fault divorce action; unborn child). Party B has no legal means or protection to stop the process. The State sides with Party A 100% of the time, to either actively enforce the action (divorce) or let it happen (abortion).
This is one reason why I say that the leadership on my side of the debate is not logically consistent. We can’t expect to succeed if we ignore the more entrenched foe.
Just found this, from SteamboatToday.com. It is a fictional account of what it is like to live as a child of divorce, by Chris Drake, Ph.D.:
…After going back and forth from Dad’s house to Mom’s house, I began to feel like I had no real home. I had trouble knowing where my stuff for school and sports was. It seemed like I had to make all the changes, even though I hadn’t divorced my parents. Why couldn’t they let me stay in one house and they move in and out for a week at a time?
No one asked me if my mom or dad spent more time with me before the divorce. No one asked me how I felt toward each of them and how much I trusted each of my parents. No one asked me if I’d feel better living more with my mom or my dad. No one asked me if I even felt safe. The judge decided how and where I would live for the rest of my childhood.
…Children who are bounced from home to home have no true home…
The Pretender by the Foo Fighters might make a good anthem for the kids of divorce. Not only are the lyrics great, but the imagery of the menacing cops reminds me of how in divorce, the state invades the home to destroy families without anybody doing anything wrong at the invitation of one spouse. Seriously–a spouse who doesn’t want a divorce could go to jail for resisting. Divorces are enforced by the government 100% of the time, even if you did nothing wrong. The state takes sides against legally innocent spouses in every case, by design. And if you’re the child, doctors will drug you to get you to go to along with the re-education program of denying that your first family matters. As far as this video is concerned, we just need to add a cadre of PhDs in the background claiming that what the cops are doing is OK because they can clean up the mess after it’s all over… for a cut of the marital assets.
As a conservative and former libertarian, I can understand why people don’t see how the state frees us. It does, but it also depends on how you define certain other ideas such as freedom, justice, and oppression. Let me start by using an example with which we can all agree.
Let’s say a person enters your home with the intent to kill you. You manage to hide in a closet somewhere. You call 911, the police arrive, and capture the person. He goes to jail, is convicted, and spends a long time in prison.
The state has freed you, right? How did that work? One of the obligations of the state is to protect the innocent and to render justice. But the potential murderer almost certainly thinks that the state has acted in an oppressive manner to convict him of a crime and throw him into prison.
So it is a matter of perspective. It is a matter of deciding where your ethics originate.
Now, let’s take that concept and apply it in another area: marriage, family, and religion. Marxists, communists, and feminists have argued for decades (if not longer) that these institutions are oppressive and unjust. They’ve made excellent headway using the legal system to suppress those institutions thereby reducing those “injustices.” Even a lot of conservatives and many libertarians are on board with these changes. However, we have seen a corresponding rise in the power of the state. How do we explain this? The state doesn’t give freedom, does it? Well, as we saw with the example above, it sort of does in the sense that it is supposed to render justice. So by suppressing all of the pre-existing social institutions, a lot of people believe that the state is rendering justice and freeing the oppressed. By suppressing those institutions, the state liberates the individual from his familial and religious obligations. It is a very seductive idea, with superficial appeal. I went along with it myself for quite a while.
From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the problem is that the state’s power has gone up rather than down. It is the opposite of what we anticipated when we got on board with “sexual liberation,” which is just another way of saying that the state should free us from familial and religious obligations. The dilemma for conservatives and libertarians who believe in “sexual liberation” is this: those social institutions were founded on the concept of rights coming from “nature and nature’s God.” Those rights have their own obligations, and those institutions served as a buffer between us and the state. But many among us are are endorsing the state suppressing them in order to free us from those obligations. This leaves nothing except the individual and the state, and our rights from “nature and nature’s God” go into the trash can, along with those responsibilities.
I received this as a comment on my blog a few days ago and am posting it here with permission:
My sister is divorced. Her ex is living with a new woman with a daughter. My sister has tried to remarry on a few occasions which fell through. My poor nephew has been dealing with this since he was 7 years old. He’s 11 now. And he has some major emotional issues. He now lies to his dad about his mom. When he’s with his mom, he lies to her. He plays protector to each parent (his dad is a psychopath though so I’m not saying my sister should have stayed. He was abusive too). It’s pretty awful because they are both abusive in their own right. His dad, more so. But she’s also abusive as she swears and yells on the phone to his dad when he is in the room. It’s just terrible. Anyway, now when he’s with his dad he has to deal with a sibling that wasn’t there before. And that is an added layer to deal with. If he already feels invisible, I can’t imagine competing with another kid for attention. It’s just a sad scenario.
My observation: superficially it might be easy to pin his lying on his parents abusive behavior, but that’s only part of the story. Let me repost the diagrams so that we can see what’s going on in this poor boy’s life:
Can you see how the structure of his family requires him to lie to them about the other parent? In his desire to please each parent, he may be telling them what he knows they need to hear to stay in their good graces. He may be in a double bind: if he lies, then he remains safe with that parent in the sense that his lie may virtue signalling that the other parent deserves rejection. If he does not lie, then he fails to virtue signal which may trigger abandonment fears in him. Another possibility is that he is exercising what little power he has by playing both ends against the middle. I was accused of that a number of times growing up. In both cases, it is the parents’ rejection of each other has created this scenario. And he is emotionally isolated in the sense that nobody else has the same family that he has. He is the lone member of his fractured family structure.
We know that freedom isn’t free. It is a popular saying among patriots. Somebody has to pay for liberty, with their life, with their limbs, with their sanity. It is an obvious fact of life.
Sexual liberty is the same. For some people to enjoy that liberty, others have to be dismembered, have to ache, have to suffer, have to cry, have to struggle for the rest of their lives with mental or emotional issues. We are completely comfortable with subjecting our unborn and our children to death and/or a perpetualstatesof chaos so that we can exercise this most cherished freedom.
Our government has taken sides in this fight, in favor of adults having access to unrestricted orgasms. It shields them from the consequences of their sexual activity, thereby becoming an active participant in what happens to the victims.
Let’s compare real liberty with the false idea of “sexual liberty.” Who benefits and who pays?
Matrix of real liberty vs. sexual liberty
Just war for real liberty
The fight for “sexual liberty”
Adults who fight against restrictions on male orgasms
The unborn, children, discarded sex partners
The unborn and children, who are weak, vulnerable, helpless, and needy, serve the same role as the military, with their strong men, equipment, machinery, training, leadership, and ability to choose whether or not to take that risk.
I was going to put some photos of each type here (military injuries, abortion) but they were too horrific. Suffice to say that both are bloody and shocking and so are quite similar in that respect. We can also think of veterans who suffer with PTSD, as well as children who experience mental and emotional disturbances as a result of family-structure failure.
That’s not very flattering for sexual liberty’s beneficiaries, is it? They are monsters and they don’t even know it. But they are not beyond redemption and I don’t mean to imply that they are. While we live there is always hope. But advocacy for tearing a small human out of his mother’s womb is monstrous. It embodies the very definition of monster:
an inhumanly cruel and wicked person
Put another way: if tearing a small human out of his mother’s womb, for the purpose of causing his death, is not wicked, then nothing is wicked. So thank God some people are upholding the definition of “wicked.” It is a legitimate category.
If you’ve done wicked things, welcome to the club! So have I (not abortion, but other things). But we can’t keep doing them and we can’t condone others doing them. We have to stop and turn around.
Sexual liberty is a pagan, selfish, bloody, murderous, torturous ideology. No Christian should have anything to do with it.
I had an exchange with someone regarding my assertion that fertile couples do not have a right to pregnancy-free coitus. Her basic claim was that:
“…forcing women to give birth in unwanted pregnancies is inhumane.”
“Forcing women to give birth…” Who is doing the forcing? Do you see how she has tried to shift the burden onto others? There is no responsibility whatsoever being taken, just a irrational appeal to justice.
It is irrational because fertile couples don’t have a right to pregnancy-free coitus. There is no contraceptive method that is 100% effective, and so for fertile couples to claim a right to pregnancy-free coitus is to claim a right to the impossible. It should be obvious that nobody has a right to that which is impossible, and so this is why I say it is not rational. When you see Catholics talking about “the contraceptive mentality,” this is what they are talking about. Purely recreational, baby-free sex is a very seductive idea, and using contraceptives feeds right into it.
If we accept the pro-choice premise, that fertile couples DO have a right to pregnancy-free coitus, then it makes sense to claim that an unwanted pregnancy is an injustice because then the baby is like an unwanted intruder. But since that premise is not rational, we must reject it. Thus, carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is not an injustice. In fact, it is a profound act of humanity to bring another human being into the world.