Michael Bresciani
The philosophy of abortion - - intrinsically flawed
By Michael Bresciani
If this article were entitled "The Philosophy of Abortion is Demonic," some readers would have never started reading, especially, after seeing that the author is a minister. It would have been a far more honest title, but trying to explain how the inspiration that originates with the "god of this world," (Satan,) results in what is known as the "doctrine of devils" would be daunting.
The biblical teaching provides a definitive and decisive blow to abortion and all pro-abortion arguments from several perspectives, but one verse alone speaks to abortion in no uncertain terms. To wit:
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt 18: 6)
First, who would argue that 'death' for a tiny unborn human being (fetus) would constitute a very serious offense? Secondly, who has the right to decide the extent or fullest meaning of the words "little ones" in the verse? The meaning of the verse cannot be strained so as not to include the unborn, which are indeed, the littlest of all human beings.
It is not the lack of scriptural knowledge alone that plagues the credulity of the pro-choice movement, but rather, it is a lack of genuine honesty on many levels including its own philosophical premise or foundation.
The heart of the pro-choice argument is based on the argument or more accurately the deleterious notion that aborting ones offspring is exercising a woman's right to decide all matters concerning her own body.
Pro-life philosophy is based on the belief that the child in the womb is not ever the woman's body, but it is an entirely separate entity. The pro-life and the pro-choice view both raise questions that no abortion advocate has been able to answer yet. Let's examine.
If the fetus is the woman's body why would any woman do something harmful to her own body? We try to protect people from themselves who are prone to SI syndrome (self-injury) or suicidal. They are sedated, counseled, treated or incarcerated to keep them from inflicting bodily harm or death — to themselves. Only in abortion do we march, rally, advocate for and enact legislation to make it possible for a woman to hurt, maim and kill what they insist is their own body. More than a mere philosophical delusion this is high level stupidity and hypocrisy combined.
If, as the argument goes, the unborn child is part of the woman's body, why doesn't that 'part' of her body have the same rights extended to it, to choose, to thrive, and to live? The absurdity of 'rights over a woman's body' fails to answer this question.
Why doesn't a woman give up an arm or a kidney willfully? What we have is rights, but on a very selective basis. In every case, however, the part of her body she has decided against, the part that is discarded like waste material can be removed without any serious discomfort or pain to the mother, how convenient. Take the liver, the heart, the brain, they too, are just part of her body, but that will never happen.
Is it the right to decide about their own bodies or simply the right to 'kill,' they are fighting for? Nature itself speaks against our fallen condition and selfishly driven philosophies. Almost every species of animal will fight to the death to save the life of its offspring. Only humans, and only in this backward last day's generation, will one species, supposedly the most advanced, fight to the bitter end — to put their own offspring to death.
"It's my body — it's my choice" is philosophically lost in relativism and subjectivism, but scripture, God, nature, common sense and billions of pro-life people around the world, have labeled it for what it is — murder. It will take a great deal more than a flawed philosophy to establish any real reason or excuse to cover the genocide of 160 million abortions worldwide and 55 million in the United States alone.
In the U.S. we have resorted to science, the courts and even presidents (Barack Obama) who has publicly stated that knowing if a fetus is a human being is "above his pay grade" to answer. How can someone who doesn't know when life begins become president? How can a president who vows to protect the United States from, "every enemy foreign or domestic," not see that an unborn baby is about as domestic as it gets? Who would guess that religion, common sense and philosophical objectivism would be dismissed in a single generation by a mere politician?
The glaring stupidity and callousness of such a statement proves beyond doubt that modern women, abortionists and those (scientists) who pride themselves on explaining everything, even if it allegedly happened eight to ten billion years ago have an obvious gap between theory and reality.
Those who presume to explain the origins of life by describing a primordial pool of ooze hit by a lightning bolt that kicked off the first one cell amoeba and presto life began on the planet earth, suddenly go dumb on the theory of the fetus. If asked when life begins in the womb they do everything but plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid a reality that in practice almost everyone refutes. Example; when her husband comes home the day she took her EPT test and it was positive, the first words out of her mouth, without coaching from science, judges or presidents is; "honey, we're going to have a baby!"
Not knowing something (when life begins) is not a philosophy at all, why do we present it as one, even more, why are we allowed to use a non-philosophy as a means to stop the life of even one human being? Honesty is circumvented when it seen that we will use anything, philosophy or non-philosophy to do what we damn well please.
We also choose to hear only those voices that support our own view even if it costs the life of another. Without dispute, Barack Obama will go down in history as the "blame president." He has charged the weather, the Greek bailout, the Republican led congress and George Bush for every failed promise or policy he has ever made. We should not be surprised that in his 2008 campaign he used the phrase, "It's above my pay grade," to skirt the issue of when life begins.
In contrast another of our modern presidents, whose entire life was dedicated to standing up and taking responsibility is quoted for saying this...
"When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain that is long and agonizing." -Ronald Reagan. Should we believe the Blamer, or the Gipper?
To any president then or now the message of Joseph Bonkowski, (Quote Me) speaks to them all, but never so much, as in an election year. Joseph says, "Abortion is legal only because babies can't vote."
Until the 'alleged' most brilliant minds of this generation can come to a consensus about when life begins, shouldn't we choose to err on the side of caution?
In the absence of acceptable scientific evidence, why have we resorted to a purely subjective philosophy to answer the question of when life begins? This faulty philosophy has been engaged by Barack Obama as a campaign tool. He has declared that his opponents are waging a war against women. Look again Mr. President the only causalities in this war are unborn children.
In a nation that once fought and won the argument against 'taxation without representation' how can it be that we now allow a death sentence against an innocent without representation. Could it be that the most likely advocate for the unborn (the mother) has opted for a faulty philosophical premise known as "the right to choose?" Philosophy, ideology, campaign tools and politics hardly seem a fair price for the blood of the innocents.
The thousands of unborn human beings lost each day to the subjectivism of "choice" is very objective proof that the only war being waged is against the unborn. Women are sailing along unscathed.
Most of the pro-choice people in the U.S. including Barack Obama and HHS chief, Kathleen Sibelius (a professing Catholic) may have long since forgotten the scriptural admonitions about "choices," if they ever knew them. For the record and in the hopes of jogging the better judgment of even one of them, here is a reminder.
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." (De 30: 19)
Odd, how that brings us full circle back to the biblical explanation known as — "Doctrines of Devils." (1Ti 4: 1) Let's do the common interpretation of this verse as it applies to taking a life. Setting aside all human reasoning and fanciful philosophy, what this verse says is — taking anyone's life is always demonically inspired — no questions asked.
© Michael Bresciani
September 24, 2012
If this article were entitled "The Philosophy of Abortion is Demonic," some readers would have never started reading, especially, after seeing that the author is a minister. It would have been a far more honest title, but trying to explain how the inspiration that originates with the "god of this world," (Satan,) results in what is known as the "doctrine of devils" would be daunting.
The biblical teaching provides a definitive and decisive blow to abortion and all pro-abortion arguments from several perspectives, but one verse alone speaks to abortion in no uncertain terms. To wit:
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt 18: 6)
First, who would argue that 'death' for a tiny unborn human being (fetus) would constitute a very serious offense? Secondly, who has the right to decide the extent or fullest meaning of the words "little ones" in the verse? The meaning of the verse cannot be strained so as not to include the unborn, which are indeed, the littlest of all human beings.
It is not the lack of scriptural knowledge alone that plagues the credulity of the pro-choice movement, but rather, it is a lack of genuine honesty on many levels including its own philosophical premise or foundation.
The heart of the pro-choice argument is based on the argument or more accurately the deleterious notion that aborting ones offspring is exercising a woman's right to decide all matters concerning her own body.
Pro-life philosophy is based on the belief that the child in the womb is not ever the woman's body, but it is an entirely separate entity. The pro-life and the pro-choice view both raise questions that no abortion advocate has been able to answer yet. Let's examine.
If the fetus is the woman's body why would any woman do something harmful to her own body? We try to protect people from themselves who are prone to SI syndrome (self-injury) or suicidal. They are sedated, counseled, treated or incarcerated to keep them from inflicting bodily harm or death — to themselves. Only in abortion do we march, rally, advocate for and enact legislation to make it possible for a woman to hurt, maim and kill what they insist is their own body. More than a mere philosophical delusion this is high level stupidity and hypocrisy combined.
If, as the argument goes, the unborn child is part of the woman's body, why doesn't that 'part' of her body have the same rights extended to it, to choose, to thrive, and to live? The absurdity of 'rights over a woman's body' fails to answer this question.
Why doesn't a woman give up an arm or a kidney willfully? What we have is rights, but on a very selective basis. In every case, however, the part of her body she has decided against, the part that is discarded like waste material can be removed without any serious discomfort or pain to the mother, how convenient. Take the liver, the heart, the brain, they too, are just part of her body, but that will never happen.
Is it the right to decide about their own bodies or simply the right to 'kill,' they are fighting for? Nature itself speaks against our fallen condition and selfishly driven philosophies. Almost every species of animal will fight to the death to save the life of its offspring. Only humans, and only in this backward last day's generation, will one species, supposedly the most advanced, fight to the bitter end — to put their own offspring to death.
"It's my body — it's my choice" is philosophically lost in relativism and subjectivism, but scripture, God, nature, common sense and billions of pro-life people around the world, have labeled it for what it is — murder. It will take a great deal more than a flawed philosophy to establish any real reason or excuse to cover the genocide of 160 million abortions worldwide and 55 million in the United States alone.
In the U.S. we have resorted to science, the courts and even presidents (Barack Obama) who has publicly stated that knowing if a fetus is a human being is "above his pay grade" to answer. How can someone who doesn't know when life begins become president? How can a president who vows to protect the United States from, "every enemy foreign or domestic," not see that an unborn baby is about as domestic as it gets? Who would guess that religion, common sense and philosophical objectivism would be dismissed in a single generation by a mere politician?
The glaring stupidity and callousness of such a statement proves beyond doubt that modern women, abortionists and those (scientists) who pride themselves on explaining everything, even if it allegedly happened eight to ten billion years ago have an obvious gap between theory and reality.
Those who presume to explain the origins of life by describing a primordial pool of ooze hit by a lightning bolt that kicked off the first one cell amoeba and presto life began on the planet earth, suddenly go dumb on the theory of the fetus. If asked when life begins in the womb they do everything but plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid a reality that in practice almost everyone refutes. Example; when her husband comes home the day she took her EPT test and it was positive, the first words out of her mouth, without coaching from science, judges or presidents is; "honey, we're going to have a baby!"
Not knowing something (when life begins) is not a philosophy at all, why do we present it as one, even more, why are we allowed to use a non-philosophy as a means to stop the life of even one human being? Honesty is circumvented when it seen that we will use anything, philosophy or non-philosophy to do what we damn well please.
We also choose to hear only those voices that support our own view even if it costs the life of another. Without dispute, Barack Obama will go down in history as the "blame president." He has charged the weather, the Greek bailout, the Republican led congress and George Bush for every failed promise or policy he has ever made. We should not be surprised that in his 2008 campaign he used the phrase, "It's above my pay grade," to skirt the issue of when life begins.
In contrast another of our modern presidents, whose entire life was dedicated to standing up and taking responsibility is quoted for saying this...
"When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain that is long and agonizing." -Ronald Reagan. Should we believe the Blamer, or the Gipper?
To any president then or now the message of Joseph Bonkowski, (Quote Me) speaks to them all, but never so much, as in an election year. Joseph says, "Abortion is legal only because babies can't vote."
Until the 'alleged' most brilliant minds of this generation can come to a consensus about when life begins, shouldn't we choose to err on the side of caution?
In the absence of acceptable scientific evidence, why have we resorted to a purely subjective philosophy to answer the question of when life begins? This faulty philosophy has been engaged by Barack Obama as a campaign tool. He has declared that his opponents are waging a war against women. Look again Mr. President the only causalities in this war are unborn children.
In a nation that once fought and won the argument against 'taxation without representation' how can it be that we now allow a death sentence against an innocent without representation. Could it be that the most likely advocate for the unborn (the mother) has opted for a faulty philosophical premise known as "the right to choose?" Philosophy, ideology, campaign tools and politics hardly seem a fair price for the blood of the innocents.
The thousands of unborn human beings lost each day to the subjectivism of "choice" is very objective proof that the only war being waged is against the unborn. Women are sailing along unscathed.
Most of the pro-choice people in the U.S. including Barack Obama and HHS chief, Kathleen Sibelius (a professing Catholic) may have long since forgotten the scriptural admonitions about "choices," if they ever knew them. For the record and in the hopes of jogging the better judgment of even one of them, here is a reminder.
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." (De 30: 19)
Odd, how that brings us full circle back to the biblical explanation known as — "Doctrines of Devils." (1Ti 4: 1) Let's do the common interpretation of this verse as it applies to taking a life. Setting aside all human reasoning and fanciful philosophy, what this verse says is — taking anyone's life is always demonically inspired — no questions asked.
© Michael Bresciani
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
