Abortion prevention: don’t forget about the men


This is a post that I submitted to Kelsey Hazzard at Secular Pro-Life

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/08/abortion-prevention-dont-forget-about.html

I encourage everyone to go to the link and comment there. Also Kelsey put a funny picture of a pregnant looking man. However, for convenience of those who subscribe to my wordpress blog, I have also copied the text here.

Abortion prevention: don’t forget about the men

Consider this situation: A man chooses to have sex with a woman who he knows will go for an abortion if she gets pregnant. She does get pregnant. She goes to an abortionist, who performs the abortion. Which of the three people killed the baby? The father, mother, or abortionist?

It should be obvious that all three people played a part in the abortion. So no matter what your answer, you are partially correct. The father chose to do the one thing that could result in a pregnancy the mother did not want. The mother chose to abort rather than seeking out alternatives. The abortionist was the final step in causing the death of the baby.

Keeping all of that in mind, if you could go back and talk to one of the people—the father, mother, or abortionist—and convince them to become pro-life, which one would you choose?

Again, there’s no one right answer, but I would pick the father. Talking to the abortionist could have a major impact if he’s the only abortionist in town and has no one to replace him, but otherwise, the mother will just go elsewhere for the abortion. Of course talking to the mother is good because if her mind changes, the child will live. But will she have the support of the father? He had expected the mother to have an abortion even before they had sex, which implies that he has no interest in taking care of the child.

Talking to the father makes sense because he has the power to change his ways and stop creating children who will be killed. He also has the ability to support the mother in taking care of the children he is responsible for, making the mother less likely to want to abort. Many women abort due to fear of being a single mother.

Outreach to women in crisis pregnancy situations is great, but we need to make sure we’re reaching the men too, rather than placing all of the weight on the women. The idea that men are irrelevant to the abortion debate is incredibly misguided.

Advertisements

What pro-choice arguments sound like.


“Yes I’m pro-choice. That’s why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it’s his body and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He’s free to choose and it’s none of our business what choice he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he should have the freedom to make his own choices.”  – Randy Alcorn

The above quote is a perfect example of how pro-choice arguments sound to pro-life advocates. They question is not whether we have a right to choose, but WHAT we have a right to choose!

Why hormonal birth control pills are irrelevant


I used to think that birth control pills were good because fewer pregnancies equals fewer abortions. On the surface this makes sense, but there are some problems with it.

First, women should not be pumping themselves with hormones that may damage their health so that men can use them as a sex machine. I feel sorry for women who believe that their body is bad and needs to be corrected with strange drugs so that men who don’t want children don’t have to take responsibility.

My second issue with it is that using hormones is not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy anyway. People have tried to fool the human body with hormones, but I am convinced that it doesn’t work.

The third problem I have with pills like is that they are a waste of money. Companies who sell these things are literally making money off of other people’s sex lives. You may not be bothered by this, but I think that the money could be put to a better use to actually help people.

I will not debate about other forms of contraception because I have no reason to suspect that they are a damage to health like hormones in pills might. They may still be a waste of money, but I know that not everyone can be the same kind of asexual autistic animal that I am.

obamacare abortion pill mandate defeated


The Hobby Lobby case was the catalyst that caused me to become actively pro-life. Clearly this is not over, but I think it is a good sign that things can change. I don’t think that this should be framed as a matter of religious freedom because life is far more relevant than religion, but I am glad that Christian organizations won’t be forced to pay for pills that have potential to kill zygotes by preventing implantation.

http://aclj.org/obamacare/huge-win-for-life-liberty-obamacare-abortion-pill-mandate-defeated-in-supreme-court

“Moments ago, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The result?

Victory.

Victory for religious liberty. Victory for life. Victory for common sense.

First, the Supreme Court held that, yes, closely-held corporations can assert religious liberty rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Here’s Justice Alito, writing for the majority:

As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.

Next, the Court stated that it has “little trouble” concluding that the abortion-pill mandate “substantially burdened” Hobby Lobby’s exercise of religion. This meant that the Obama Administration could only prevail if it could show that its mandate was the “least restrictive means” of advancing a “compelling government interest.”

The Obama Administration could not meet that heavy burden.

So it lost. Decisively.

What does this mean? It means that the Obama Administration cannot trample the rights of business owners at will, treating them merely as extensions of the federal government. Business owners enjoy fundamental liberties, and that common sense conclusion will have wide-ranging ramifications for liberty.

The decision is also a clear defeat for the abortion lobby and its radical White House allies. Hobby Lobby and – by extension – all of our ACLJ clients cannot be drafted into directly subsidizing abortion on demand.

We filed a key amicus brief in this case where we asserted the very arguments the Court adopted today. In addition, we have two cases before the Supreme Court on this same issue, have filed seven challenges to the abortion-pill Mandate (prevailing in all of them) and have filed more than a dozen amicus briefs nationwide. In other words, we launched a years-long effort to defeat the Mandate and are grateful for this outstanding result.

The Obama Administration has suffered a stinging defeat. And that means liberty won.

And – most important of all – lives will be saved.”

Why pro-choice atheists are irrelevant


I am a pro-life advocate, but I am not an atheism advocate. The reason is that atheism is a lack of belief, but being pro-life is an actual belief that life is relevant, true, and good. Usually atheists believe that their life on earth is the only one they get. This means that they should think twice before killing anything. The fact that those claiming to be atheists are mostly pro-choice seems impossible to me. Something is wrong.

If atheism was an actual belief system, it could be checked for validity. Instead, I have the challenge of watching individual people who claim to be atheists. Do their words match their actions? Are they truly freethinkers or do they make the mistake of siding with popular opinion?

I understand why some theists might be pro-choice if they have been convinced that murder is God’s will, but for atheists, it is a whole different story. Since atheists don’t have a God telling them what to do, they have the potential to do things that theists can’t do. Some of these things are good and others are bad.

I am disappointed to see that relativism has infected both theists and atheists. The key difference for the atheist is that they don’t have a God to blame their actions on when they do something wrong. This makes them MORE responsible for all their actions. This is something I remember in everything I do.

I think of morality as being something that is based in reality. The Golden Rule is the standard I go by. The reason is because not only is it nice, but also because it is the only thing that makes sense!

If I consider the life of other people to be as relevant as my own, then I don’t kill them. If I kill myself, I don’t live long enough to kill someone else. I don’t understand those who kill other people and then themselves. If they would just start with themselves, then no one’s choice is violated.

Aside from the Golden Rule, there is another rule that I live by. If an action is one that can’t be undone, I should either NOT do it, or I need to have a REALLY GOOD REASON for it. Some things can be reversed and others can’t.

When someone steals something, it is bad, but if they can give it back, then the damage is reversed. If they lie, they will lose trust, but they may be able to tell the truth before more damage is done. In those cases, the damage is reversible. When someone kills someone, they have no way of bringing them back to life. This means that killing is the ULTIMATE irreversible act.

The entire point of being an atheist is that it does not actually define who I am. It only defines what I am not. It strips away all presuppositions so that I can find meaning in my life without needing other sources to tell me what it is.

Not all information is useful and there are motivations for deceiving people. Atheists who hold the pro-choice position on abortion need to stop their hypocrisy. Being pro-choice about things involving life and death means that life does not matter enough to you. If life does not mean anything, then you might as well let the world be run over by those annoying theists who force their God on you.

Avoid the relativism that says that it does not matter what you believe or do. It tells us to be so “tolerant” that we stop asking questions or thinking about things that matter. If this is the only life that we have, then pretending that all truth is relative to an individual means that truth exists only in the minds of the living and then dies. This is why I care about standards that apply equally to life everywhere.

I do not want to let fear control my life anymore. For me, being an atheist means that no God, scientist, philosopher, or king has the right to stop me from telling the truth. They can stop me by killing me, but in the end, they would only be showing their weakness. I find great humor in the way that every time someone comes along and tells people not to kill people, it isn’t long before somebody kills them.

I am convinced that protecting life is the most rational thing that anyone can do. This applies to atheists even more because they can’t expect God to resurrect everyone and make everything right. Many atheists protect their own lives at any cost, but deny the relevance of other people when they see them as a threat. This is mostly based on fear. I want to bridge the gap between theists and atheists.

To help theists understand why I have my own problems with the majority of the atheists, I need to explain that atheists also have “gods” that dictate to them what is right or wrong. Whatever they place their trust in is what they will defend in the same way that theists defend their gods.

If they are trusting in money, then everything becomes about getting money. If this means killing, lying, or stealing, then they WILL do it at the first chance. This can lead to the destruction of many lives. The worst part is that all the work people do at earning money will be completely irrelevant when they die. This is the greatest tragedy of all.

With the knowledge that money does not exist, but life does, it only makes sense to be pro-life rather than pro-money. A pro-money position usually becomes a pro-death position.

As far as whether a creator named God exists, I will let other people fight about that. In daily life, I do not see God, but every day I see the words “In God we trust” . It is written on the paper and metal people refer to as money. There seems to be a relevance between God and money.

When humans choose to murder other humans or other animals. They often say “It is okay to kill because: money.” or “It is okay to kill because: God.”. What then is the difference between God and money? What is it that people put their “trust” in.

The fact that I am not 100 percent sure that God or money exist outside of human brains means that I cannot trust in either. I cannot serve God or money. What then do I serve?

I serve relevance over irrelevance, truth over falsehood, good over bad, life over death.

I trust in what I have seen with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and touched with my own hands.

By these rules I have chosen, I am convinced that even if I don’t stay an atheist, I will stay pro-life.

Why tolerance is irrelevant


The problem with tolerance is that people mean different things when they talk about tolerance. When somebody else has a different idea of what tolerance is, they become intolerant. I understand this because I am intolerant of words that are not clearly defined.

I have no problem with people being different from me in appearance, belief, or action as long as no harm is being done to me or someone else. I certainly will not try to stop people from watching movies or reading books that they like. I don’t think that information should be restricted nor do I want to ban all beliefs or practices that I disagree with.

However, I am sure that there are certain things that people need to agree on. I think that by defining terms and talking with others who are different, I can understand the reasons for their actions. Otherwise, I may make false assumptions that cause me to be afraid of them.

I think constantly about which things I should tolerate and which I should either oppose or promote. Some things are just plain bad. There is no way I would ever want to promote abortion, rape, or dishonesty.

If I am doing something that is hurting someone, I expect somebody to tell me about it. Otherwise I will have no clue. In this case, I hope that people are intolerant enough to correct me if they have reason to believe that I am wrong.

If someone ignores someone because they disagree with their religion or politics, this is not tolerance. It is irrelevance. Since some things automatically affect everyone, they need to be talked about. I think that religion, politics, death, sex, and marriage are things that do affect us even when we try to avoid them.

As an example, I want to understand marriage. I am not looking to get married, but I need to know what it means to other people. Should I ignore people just because they are married to someone else that I do not like? What is the response I should have if I am invited to a wedding? How do I communicate with a friend if they marry someone who is abusive to them or to me?

Is it right to let people believe lies? A person cannot call themselves pro-life and then bomb an abortion clinic. It is just as wrong for them to kill as it is for the abortionists to kill. A person cannot call themselves pro-choice and then force people to pay for the abortions of others. If they arrest or kill anyone who wants to end abortion then they have taken away someone’s choice.

How can anyone tolerate things that are causing them pain? When people say one thing and then do the exact opposite, what response can there be except to point out the hypocrisy? I have no tolerance for people who confuse me. Because of this, such people are irrelevant to me unless their actions become relevant to their words.

Why purpose is relevant


A purpose is the point, goal, destination, or end that someone desires. When someone has a purpose for doing something, there is very little that can stop them. Some purposes are easier to reach because they require less time, work, or money.

Some purposes can be started and finished by one person. If a person very strongly believes that their purpose is to sing, they can try all they like, as long as they have a voice. Aside from death or an accident that leaves them mute, they will continue singing.

But what if a person decides that their purpose is to make money by singing. In this case, they have changed the goal of their singing. They may have set themselves up for failure if their voice is not one that people will pay to listen to. The truth of the matter is that when your purpose depends on other people doing what you want, it will most likely fail.

In no way do I base my actions on what I think is possible. Without knowing the future, I cannot even know whether my actions will lead to the purpose I want. I can still make good guesses about what will or will not achieve the purpose.

If I want peace, then war is out of the question. War only breeds more war. If I want to relieve pain, then I must eliminate any behaviors of mine that are causing pain. This requires people to tell me if I have done something that hurt them.
As I think about the purpose of my life, I know that there are many things that I can and cannot do. My purpose is directly RELEVANT to everything that I think, feel, or do. If my purpose is to be relevant to the world and all who live in it, it automatically requires me to open myself up to anything and everyone who has the power to hurt me.

I do believe that “The end justifies the means.”, but to me it is wrong to lie, kill, or steal. This is because the “end” that I want is to live in a world without lies, killing, or stealing.

Since my main purpose in life is ending pain, it is quite rational to fight against anything that causes physical or emotional pain. I find that nothing causes more pain than abortion.

It is not without reason that I constantly compare almost everything to abortion. Everything I read or hear is filtered through that subject. Abortion is the ultimate immoral act that has ever happened. It affects me directly.

The US government taxes me against my will, then lies to women and tells them that abortion is “safe”, and finally, people are being paid to kill babies. This makes abortion a combination of stealing, lying, and killing.

I will not debate with people over irrelevant things such as when life begins or if that life is “human”. Just because you can find a way to rationalize the killing of innocent living things does not mean you will ever find a way to justify the lies and theft.

Now that I have explained my purpose of ending abortion, it may be easier for people to understand everything else that I have written. All information that comes my way is filtered through my three beliefs of relevance, truth, and goodness.

A selfish person has not yet learned to be relevant to other people. A dishonest person has not learned to speak what is true. A person who does not not back up their words with action, has not learned to do good.

I want to do so much more than just write about what is relevant, true, and good. How much I can do is directly relevant to the time, money, and how many people are working for the same things that I am.

If I succeed in ending worldwide abortion, my next goal is to end the suffering of all animals. I strongly believe that humans are just one type of animal. The only reason my activism starts with humans is because they happen to be the species which is causing the most pain to all animals, humans included.

As an honest person, I must admit that my philosophy is directly relevant to what I want to do. If a belief I have is not helping me do good, then I say it is irrelevant. If another person believes something that is helping them do good, then I think they should continue what they are doing, even if I think their beliefs are false or irrelevant to me.