State Sponsored Terrorism

There are news reports that the anti-abortionists are readying a new wave of assaults on American women.  This, at a time when there are so many other important issues facing Americans, is perplexing.  As you look behind these activities you find the loose confederation of evangelicals and fundamentalists organized by “for profit” churches.  Their goal is to reverse “Roe v Wade” at the minimum and at best, to make it illegal under any conditions for a woman to end her pregnancy.

Georgia is considering an initiative that will define life to begin with fertilization.  Logically then anything that would end the pregnancy would, in effect, be an act of murder.  I wonder if they have thought about:

1. How many “PP” (pregnancy police) they will need to spy in each bedroom to see if copulation has taken place and then run spot checks (like athelete  who take urine tests) to see if the woman is pregnant?

2. What means of electronic earsdroping will be used to determine if a woman leaves the state and returns, whether she had had an abortion?

3. Could the State pursue a woman into another State on the suspicion that the woman was pregnant and might consider having an abortion?

These ridiculous situations may seem unreal but given the pending laws, they are the logical extension of thinking that chooses to subjugate a woman’s right to her reproductive health.  But what is behind this?

1. In running any religion or ideological group, it is always easier to gain consensus when you present the people with an enemy.  With religions, where you are dealing with faith and belief (not logic or facts), to imply that an abortion is analogous to killing, you get a quick response…”thou shalt not kill”.  Just like Jim Jones, it is them against us and we have to win or they will destroy us.

2. I would certainly not categorize most of the modern evangelical and fundamentalist leaders as Jim Jones types.  I would simply call them what they are… they are shrewd business men and women.  They are feeding their flocks something that makes the unthinking feel they are better than others.  For this people turn over buckets of dollars to these religious leaders.

3. American was founded upon the inalienable rights of individuals to personal liberties.  Through out our history we have seen an enlightenment that these rights apply to everyone regardless of race, creed, or gender.  (We are working on sexual preference now).  How then can we protect the woman’s right to choose?

4. I suggest we fight fire with fire.  Let’s begin a drive to tax all religious institutions that choose to try and influence the public agenda.  I have no beef with churches that teach people how to pray or see nature as beautiful, or even how they think they should live.  I react when these churches try and tell me how I should live.  So, let’s tax them like any other corporation.

Explore posts in the same categories: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Blogroll, Democratic Party, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mit Romney, Politics, Religion, Republican Party, Rudy Giuliani

7 Comments on “State Sponsored Terrorism”

  1. Jason Says:

    A woman’s right to reproductive health does not include taking the life of babies (not fetuses). This is not to say that I agree with the laws that are being proposed. I am deeply troubled how many of my fellow evangelical Christians never raise a finger to adopt any of the several hundred thousand unwanted children that are born in the United States each eyar. Nor do many of my fellow Christians understand that society’s right to protect intself idoes not nclude the penalty of death for criminals (who are not just criminals, but people). The difficulty for me here is that so many people who want to champion a culture of life really don’t believe in a full culture of life.

    If we are to tax the church, then we must also tax Planned Parenthood and any other number of organizations that propose to tell us how to live; including many churches that probably also take definitive stands on issues of the day that you might agree with. Take, for example, the fact that most African-American churches basically openly violate the law by endorsing Democratic candidates for the Presidency from their pulpits. Of course, their “white” counterparts often do the same for Republican candidates.

  2. underdog Says:

    Always intriguing to find militiant leftism, which is theoretically based on objective truth and individual liberty, thus clearly in the right – so anxious to engage in inflamatory language and as if some art form, painting with words such graphic demonic pictures of the anti-choice/freedom facists on the right.

    Reclaiming the center? hmmmmm…. a nobel concept.

    Let us try to practice it here a moment.

    All biological life is a functional result of DNA and the building blocks of genetic code within cellular biology. A mouse, a pig, a dog, a human being as a unique member of the species begins the journey of life from a single, incomplete cell. The genetic code for development of a unique lifeform within the species is not complete until conception. It is just simply a scientific fact that at that moment the transformational code of the combined genetic materials now facilitates the growth and development of the organism.

    This biological and scientific fact is a-moral. The now unique lifeform is on the biological path of development within the species, again a dog a cat or a human being. Life is not subjective, it is objective. It is measurable, observable, indisputable.

    The application of moral thought with respect to life is a matter of individual judgement. You may either apply the moral judgements of human life to all stages of development, or you may selectively dismiss them, but it is a choice only with respect to the moral thought, independent of the biological reality.

    Thus society makes moral judements as to the extension of law with respect to the protection of human beings, based not on the science, but based on the subjective needs of the society. So-called “rights” are either applied or withheld. You either have the “right” to choose, or it is denied. The organism either has the “right” to life, or it is denied.
    But the application of a higher moral standard to the “rights” of any group versus another is sociologically subjective. Is the right to “choose” superior to the “right” to life? Or vice versa?

    Returning to the natural, biological facts – the unique individual human life form is either terminated from existance, or continues on with development. It cannot know the moral judements made by OTHER human beings about existance.

    Finally then the issue is whether single cell or multi-cellular, unique individual human beings at any stage of development, are in fact created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights – Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether the Constitution of the United States of America extends to this level of human development or not.

    The logical consideration, purely from a Constitutional and foundational legal principle from the cornerstone documents of this Republic suggest that we must resolve these questions in the affirmative for life. Not simply because of the natural, biological and scientific reality – but because of the potential for society to make “other” judgements regarding human life. Already witness the cases of infanticide, doctor assistated suicide, and of course the case of Terri Shaivo.

    I am satisfied with a discussion regarding these issues if all accept that we are talking about the termination of unique human life forms. If society rit large determines that some human beings are not protected by either moral, or legal Constitutional “RIGHTS” – and that the subjective “rights” of society (et. al. the individual within the society) are superior – then please let’s just be honest about it.

    Yes we are talking about CHOICE. But choice in this context is neither living, developing, growing or scientific. It is a personal moral judgement that places the true RIGHTS of one human being, above the RIGHTS of another human being. The individual liberty and freedom of a living human being, to terminate the existance of another.

    Finally, the CENTER of this issue recognized the enourmous complexity of LIFE versus sociological precident. It recognizes the realities that there are cases where saving one life, may require the termination of another. It recognizes the deep emotional impact of violence, rape and fear. It recognizes that patients, and calm debate and conversation are much needed, but often lacking from this issue.

    I will continue to try and understand all aspects and deep complexities therein.


  3. Jason, you are an honest person admitting the shameful fact that most “pro-lifers” stop their advocacy at birth. Adoption, living in poverty, living with physical and mental handicaps, the death penalty, and participating in an unjust war do not seem to bother them. The por-life argument would certainly be stronger if it were complete. Also I would be open to taxing pro-choice groups that work to influence public policy. Thanks for your comments.


  4. Underdog, I am not sure what you said but you said it well. The curious aspect of human nature is the over abundance of sperm and eggs. In a world that see about 1-2 births per family in developed countries and in places that are desease ridden and poverty stricken, the number is much higher. More and more people are born into existances that provide little chance for success. In the US where some families choose to have 3, 4, or more children, there will always be an excess of eggs and sperm. From a evolutionary perspective one would like to see more than 2 births per couple but you would like these two to be well equipt for survival. While ending a pregnancy is undesirable, it is often preferred over alternatives. A child born into a dysfunctional family situation is not a pretty picture. A handicaped child for whom there will be no special care is not a pretty picture. A child born where as a result the mother dies is not a pretty picture and should only result from the mother’s choice to have the birth.

  5. underdog Says:

    zukunftsaugen Says:

    January 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
    Underdog, I am not sure what you said but you said it well.

    Why thank you…. you may re-read it as you find time thanks for taking the time to think through these issues.

    I think that there is some value to looking at this purely from a rational, scientific, perhaps even evolutionary perspective.

    However, my deep concern over this approach is that we reduce humanity simply to the base animalistic behaviors. In such a digression, murder is not immoral, war is not immoral, genocide is not immoral, in fact there is no moral context in the animal kingdom – simply behavior.

    I reject this, even from a purely rational point of view – setting aside all religious or philisophical constructs. If a monkey picks up a stick and splits the skull of another monkey, or if a lion kills the antilope on the open plains of the serengeti – there is death without murder, a life is taken without sin or law.

    But if humanity arms itself with a hundered thousand nuclear weapons and anihilates the species and creates a planetary mass extinction event – I consider that to be irrational. Yet in the context of Amoral objectivism – there is nothing wrong with that.

    I do protest.

    It is the value of each and every life that matters, and from a preservation of the species, our “choices” must be considered PRIOR to the act of copulation and thus conception of a unique, human life form.

    When we observe a culture of life, that both protects the innocent embryo – and rejects the tenents of WAR – then we have a species capable of great, great things…. not the least of which is survival.


  6. Underdog, the underlying issue is that our fundamental nature, that is what makes our spicie evolve is the over abundance of chances for surveival (lots of eggs and sperms, and of course the desire to copulate)… Therefore it is neither morally or ethically necessary that every conception come to birth. It may be desirable (in some views) but it is not necessary. So what ever legal system overlay should be proposed, we should consider that there are reasons that a fetus is not allowed to be born (the world will not end). One is that the mother decides that her well being is more valuable in the big picture. Not a pretty way to say it but in the end it gives value to the woman. Each and every life does not turn out so good, and frankly, most of America does not care about what happens after the fetus is born.

  7. underdog Says:

    well.. even if we may disagree… wouldnt it be nice if this conversation writ large was conducted in such a quiet manner.

    then all would be better informed, and respect for opposing views and others would guide us in these matters rather than hatred.

    thank you for your thoughtful discussion


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: