|8 Weeks - Decide for Yourselves
Abandoning Reason With The Baby
James Hall, From the Left
Charles Colson, the former Nixon White House counsel who found Jesus
behind bars, is finding fault with the pro-choice movement these days. According to Reverend Colson, in his latest cultural
commentary, "America's Abandoned Babies,"
the issue of infants left to die in alleys or dumpsters can be laid on
the doorstep of Roe v. Wade. "The abortion people and the pro-choice lobby wouldn't sanction leaving abandoned babies in dark
alleys," he says, "but in helping undercut respect for life, that's exactly the horror they've helped create." Is Colson
right, or could this particular lack of "respect for life" actually be due more to the politics and values of the pro-life
It's patently ridiculous to blame the plight of abandoned infants on
Roe v. Wade. Certainly Colson, who reads the Bible, is aware that women have been leaving children to their fates at
least since the time of Moses--that's thousands of years before the Supreme Court acted to declare a woman's reproductive
choice to be a part of the panoply of rights that Americans enjoy. But it's par for the course for the pro-life movement,
which elevated a rare abortion procedure--dilation and extraction (recreated as "partial-birth abortion") into a cause celebre
and which fights against beneficial embryonic stem cell research, to make such an exaggerated claim.
It's a sad thing when babies are exposed to die--sad and cruel.
But blaming the pro-choice movement for abandoning a born child is a bizarre response, indeed. People who support a
pro-choice environment also support sex education for young women, the use of birth control or the morning-after pill, or
the pursuing of an abortion at the early, legal stage. If these young women had lived in a truly pro-choice environment,
they would have been presented with many more choices than the one that led to the abandonment of their unwanted offspring.
It's the pro-life movement that has limited the choices of young women,
making it difficult if not impossible to visit family planning clinics, blocking the teaching of complete sex education by
refusing to teach anything but abstinence-only education, and creating a climate of shame for unwed mothers. Abstinence
is a fine option, the best option in fact, but what does the ignorant young woman do once she gives up abstinence for sex?
She has no information to help her avoid pregnancy, treat her pregnancy, or deal with the pregnancy when it occurs.
Colson omits all mention of sex education as a powerful preventative
measure. He also omits mentioning the inculcated shame of having sex before marriage that accompanies so many faiths
associated with the pro-life movement. Because these faiths stigmatize women who become pregnant out of wedlock, they
contribute to the atmosphere of shame and fear that leads many young women to hide their pregnancies from their parents and
societies--emotions that can lead to babies being abandoned.
If Colson is genuinely interested in fostering a change favoring life
in the popular culture, he can begin by supporting complete sex education for young men and women--not only education to avoid
sex, but education that discusses all the risks and remedies involved for those who choose to have sex. He can also
point the finger at cultural attitudes that heap shame on the unmarried and pregnant young woman, attitudes that make her
fearful of revealing her pregnancy and ashamed enough to make another, worse decision--abandoning her child.
So while Colson criticizes the pro-choice movement, which offers young
women a range of choices both to prevent and to manage their pregnancies, he says not a thing about the atmosphere of ignorance
and shame that leads to unexpected and unwanted pregnancies and to the abandonment of those children. Is he morally
blind to these faults, which accrue to the pro-life movement, or is he simply parroting their standard political line?
Either way, his is a line of reasoning that deserves abandoning.
Abortion is murder, says Sartre. Unfortunately for him and
his, the Supreme Court, our common law, and most Americans don't agree with that opinion, which has no basis either in fact
or in law. Okay, so brother Sartre believes this based on a religious doctrine that life begins at conception or shortly
after conception, depending on his particular brand of theology. Well and good for you, Mr. Sartre. Don't abort,
yourself. Teach your children not to as a part of your religious belief system. But don't dictate that all citizens
must follow your religious values, because we don't, and we won't.
As Justice Harry Blackmun's extensive scholarship in Roe v. Wade
demonstrates (Have you read the opinion, Mr. Sartre?), all cultures through time consider birth to be defining moment of humanity,
which is why we celebrate birthdays instead of conception-days. Even the laws of Moses, the basis of Christian belief,
likened the unborn to property and mandated a civil, not a criminal penalty if a man caused a woman to miscarry against her
will. The Catholic Church believed for centuries in the doctrine of quickening established by Aristotle, which held
that the soul arrived (indicating personhood) when the fetus began moving in the woman's womb some four or five months into
pregnancy. Laws against abortion in America date only from the late 19th century, while all mentions of "person" in
the Constitution include the requirement of being born.
Ensoulment at conception (or shortly after it if you're a Mormon)
is a Johnny-come-lately religious doctrine, but that hasn't stopped believing fundamentalists from trying to impose this theology
on the rest of us. Christians and others who don't believe in this particular doctrine shouldn't have their liberty
restricted by Sartre and his ilk. It's a sad commentary that a self-proclaimed 'champion of freedom' like Sartre would
gladly act to restrict the freedom of young women or families by restricting their right to birth control and family planning,
but there it is.
Imagine a large number of Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses
inhabited the nation instead fundamentalists like Mr. Sartre. Would we tolerate statements that the nation's morality
required vegetarianism and caffeine-free beverages, or putting an end to the pledge of allegiance because it amounts to worship
of the flag? Would we tolerate a law from Scientologists that no blood transfusions ever be given because the Bible
bans the "eating" of blood? Did we, historically, tolerate the interference of fundamentalists when they told us that
the nation must prohibit the drinking of liquor? We did not. Neither shall we permit fundamentalists to rewrite
the definition of what it is to be human simply to satisfy their religious or moral understanding.
Sartre's counterpoint is typical pro-life--or rather anti-choice,
since for them only one choice, one life matters--the life of a mass of cells that might--might--one day be human. The
life and the future of the young woman herself matters little. In fact, she deserves to be shunned, intimidated, and
punished according to Judge Sartre. Fortunately most Americans don't hold to his churlish attitudes, nor shall we consent
to being bound by his religious values. Worship where you wish, believe what you must, but stop trying to take away
our liberties, Mr. Sartre.
James Hall, From the Left
Abandoning Morality with Irrationality
When the 'bad seed' condemns Chuck Colson , he remains true to his nature.
Avoid the real issue, "Respect for Life" and substitute a bogus view of life, that has no respect for the existence of every
life. Pro-Choice is the ultimate euphemism doublespeak for legal murder. Yes, not just killing; but murder - the cultural
acceptance that society can and will allow individuals to decide, who is worthy to live and who can be discarded into the
Attacking Colson for objecting to sex education that promotes the conscious
elimination of life that grows within the womb, denies the morality and consistency of his ministry. Proponents, like your
NOW friends, are eager to refer your frail frauleins to the Josef Mengele Institute for reproductive selection. Since you
are so willing to offer the planned parenthood crowd your morning-after pill, why not dispense your compassion from the Dr
Jack Kevorkian clinic - at address RU 486 lane?
The pompous and sanctimonious appeals for a woman's choice is akin to
allowing her to select a benign form of execution, since the Supreme Court has ruled that cruel and unusual punishment is
illegal. Managing a pregnancy in your world, absolves personal responsibility and guilt. Shame when earned by licentious behavior
is appropriate and the price that should be paid. By your amoral relativism, those who shun the immoral behavior of those
who shamed themselves, is more of a sin than the act of lewdness.
Those who champion all life, are not condemning to permanent punishment;
the mother, or even the father. Our authentic compassion does not demand an 'eye for an eye', but seeks to end the genocide
of self deceit. A mothers body is the chantry for her child and the continuance of species. The Mass that is celebrated within
herself, is the destiny of the masses of all human beings.
Attempting to deny and evade the inescapable, exposes irrationality.
With charges of impugning Colson for not accepting and advocating clinical eradication of the consequences of consensual behavior,
you side with the notion that one life has more value then another. Are you so wise, or are immature progenitors, both mother
and father, to make that decision? And by what authority do you claim that it is valid to take another life, especially if
that life is growing within a vessel, created for the very purpose you wish to deny?
While the tragic loss of life in the WTC at the hands of terrorists,
is remembered regularly; we forget or wish to deny, that more abortions take place daily than, those lost by this criminal
act. Society is quite comfortable with 'selectivity for life'. Not exactly within our Judeo-Christian tradition, now is it?
If your crowd was serious about the abandonment of babies, you would
be favoring adoption as a national policy. Who dumps the infant into a dumpster? Only a person who is totally confused about
the sanctity of life or one who cares more for themselves, than the gift that was given to them. When Colson points out that
your values are defective, your response is to attack him for condemning your own hubris.
Rationalizing away guilt that should be felt, you are offering an emotional
panacea, while absolving accountability. But why should this conduct be any different from all the appeals that the secular
relativist make? Instead of promoting techniques of abortion, why are you so opposed to instructions in morality? The
record of those who fear any kind of penalty for immoral conduct, drives them into the implausibility of their own self-indulgence
Adherents of principle are not proponents of 'popular culture'. When
you justify 'situations ethics', you become a 'matron of genocide'. That is the ultimate 'PC' creed, which you so readily
profess. Destroy life whenever and wherever you find it; especially when it seeks and holds sacred values.
James Hall aka SARTRE
en pro de vida
Just who is a member of the 'Flat Earth' society? Examine the facts.
Life originates with the union of the sperm and the egg. Without this unity, none of us would exist. The conclusion, that
James 'the confused', wants you to accept is that the world is not round, nor does it revolve around the sun. If one grants
that society can define when a person begins, and codify in law or custom, that those that don't fall under that definition
are NOT human, you must accept that man can create his own reality. The biological function of conception, is then relegated
to insignificance, because it necessitates a fundamental conflict with the definition that society deems to be proper. But
at no time, does this flawed definition negate the physical reality that fertilization originates life.
Pronunciations of men, decisions of judges, and doctrines of beliefs
cannot alter this requirement of conception in all human life. One does not need to argue on any religious grounds or beliefs,
to concur that the world is a sphere traveling around the our star. So why does Mr Denial, claim that SARTRE must base this
case on religious doctrine, to establish its veracity? An objective reading of the response rests upon the logic of the physical
universe. Rejection to redesigning principles to the liking of the current mood, which negates authenticity of the laws of
nature, is the essence within the evidence.
Also note that notions of violating Liberty are fallacious. Lord Halifax
said: "If none were to have Liberty but those who understood what it is, there would not be many freed Men in the
world". The ignorance shown towards this understanding, is a primary consistency that is common to partisans of the
left. Examine if SARTRE is advocating penalties, punishments or imprisonment for violators of moral principles? Any fair evaluation
of the above content or that of related essays, will not find coercion as the means to organize society. Attempting to refute
our appeals to reason and conscience, with charges of restricting free will, only exposes this twin critic, as an operative
of his own fascist authoritarianism. Each individual is perfectly free to do good, or commit wrong.
SARTRE only proposes that which "SHOULD" be. The request is to accept
reality as it is, not as the conceit that pseudo liberals, imagine it to be and determined to force all others to accept.
How could petitions for moral behavior, be honestly characterized as acting against the freedom of others? The choice to commit
murder is made by the person who acts upon the killing. If life exists, and it is snuffed out and the remains are discarded,
what happened to the Liberty of that person?
Of course the advocates of abortion, are obliged to rest their case that
the life within, is not a human being. Acknowledgment that this life is a person, would unravel their entire philosophy of
selective parity, decided by other and ruled by force. Whether by committee, majority vote or even by consensus, they are
unable to avert this conflict. Humans Rights are equal to all . . .
The roman historian Sallust sums up the world view of 'bad seed'. He
said: "Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master". Mr Hall's comprehension of Liberty
exists only for those who have power. The life of the unborn is expendable for the abortionist, becoming the ultimate violation
of Liberty. So tell me, who is the fraud?
James Hall - 'The Right'