The Choice Solution – Freight Cars and Euphemisms
Posted by RazorsKissJun 14
Ripped from my comment at Joe’s Evangelical Outpost, and slightly revised.
They will realize what we’re saying, eventually, and quit reciting the media mantra of “ESC promises great results” like mouldering zombies. One day. That would involve them realizing that there is, actually, no evidence whatsoever for ESC promise, and every evidence for adult cell promise.
It would also require a mindset which ceases to disregard life.
I find it absolutely apalling that there is a group of Americans who will make any excuse, and take any road which involves the destruction of human life – just to be able to say “I have that right to choose” ( their death). Not their right to choose life – that is the road of ASC, or abortion alternative counseling – or even adoption proponents! Instead, they consciously, staggeringly, and even viciously end the life of another human being – just because they can then say they chose it.
Pro-Choice. Yeah. I’m Pro-Choice too. Except my choice is for life. I get to choose too, you know. That’s fine, though. Call yourself “Pro-Choice” – we know better. It’s not about our choices, though. It’s about theirs – the ones the “Pro-Choice” movement never offers a choice to at all.
It’s easier to talk about as a “fetus”, or a “blob of protoplasm” – or even “research with such great promise” (true or not). Never mind THEIR choices. Just pack em into the freight cars. We know what it is you’re doing. We aren’t quiet about it, though. Is that why you’re so hot to drag us away from in front of the abortion clinics? We’re actually refering to the “Solution of Choice” sans euphemisms? In public?
That just won’t do, will it? Then people would know about the freight cars and the suction hoses used to rip babies into pieces, and the saline solution used to burn them to death. They would know that you were creating babies solely to kill them, for some ephemeral chance for “a cure” with no history of success. They would know that for every baby that is successfully brought to term with IVF, that the others are simply discarded like garbage.
That’s the problem. We’re using non-euphemisms, and speaking about the “Solution of Choice” before the country is fully “sanitized” of all these “religious fanatics”- we are not following the herd. The herd curiously referred to as “Pro-Choice”. The levels of irony involved in this whole set of issues… especially from the side that calls itself “Pro-Choice” – and gives the victim of that choice no choice at all… staggering. No wonder there’s the huge media push to silence the “religious extremists” these days. We don’t speak of the “Choice Solution” in it’s “pretty” little euphemisms. We call it what it is. Murder.
That, my friends, is what they can’t stand. Any more than that grain of truth to make the lie sound believable, and they get uncomfortable. They don’t want to know – and they’re mad at us for dragging it all out into the light of day, instead of the comfortable euphemistic corner they’d buried it in.
My heart bleeds for their comfort zone – really.
P.S. – Tried a trackback to Joe’s post – got errors. I’ll check back later.
12 comments
Comment by Steverino on June 14, 2005 at 2:38 pm
It is not just appalling that American’s would support the right to kill a defenseless baby, it is sickening. When any dictator rounds up groups of people who who do not fit his idea of an “Ideal” human, and proceeds to open the floodgates of Genocide, it is almost universally accepted that it is right to depose said dictator. A few names like, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot (spelling?), and Slobodan Milosevic just to name a few, are considered monsters, yet a Doctor (meaning a medical professional who swears the Hippcratic Oath)can perform an “Operation” that brutally kills a completely defenseless BABY in the name of Medicine? It is sickening to see pictures of an Abortion. Can a person really become so callous, so uncaring as to abandon the care of an innocent baby, and go a step further and be the “Doctor” that performs the Abortion and tears a beatiful child limb from limb? But, as my old wise Grandfather puts it, “Son, why do ducks quack? Because they are ducks.” An unsaved person is going to be depraved and evil. Well, hope that was incoherent enough.
Comment by Steverino on June 14, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Human nature at it’s worst, in the Greatest Country ever to exist…. a “Christian” country propagating some of the greatest evil of all time. Pray that the Lord does not tarry.
Comment by Apologia Christi on June 15, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Hello Joshua, I sent you an email to rk@razorskiss.net with an invitation. Check it out and reply as soon as possible, thanks bro.
Blessings
Comment by Zaltys on June 15, 2005 at 4:35 pm
I hate to recite the obvious point yet again, but it’s not murder. murder is unlawful killing, and abortions are not against the law.
And yeah, I have no problem with killing the blob of cells that you call human and I call…a featureless blob of cells. I do question third trimester abortions to some degree, since we do not know to what level the child can think/experience at that stage. It does sadden me that you refuse to consider the benefits of IVF: With it, babies come into being. Without it, they do not. Is preventing something from ever existing less bad than killing it somehow, given that in neither case experiences will be had, apart from the child that comes alive in the case of IVF?
Steverino, I’m given to understand that all humans are depraved and evil, and that we are only saved by god’s love. Are you sure it’s wise to engage in such supercilious behaviour?
Comment by RazorsKiss on June 15, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Except that it is reprehensible to sanction or condone murder when it is contrary to the laws of God.
Abortions are abominable – no more “lawful” than the “lawful” sacrifices of infants were to Molech, the onetime God of Canaan, and of Carthage. Yes, Carthage.
Lawful my foot.
Zaltys – read my comments policy. If you’re going to be completely contrarian – at least define it a little better. My official position: “Abortion is murder of children”. Any statements contrary to the official position must be precisely defined, and supported. Your statement is hardly “obvious”, however much you may believe it to be so.
I don’t want to dissuade contrary opinion. However, I DO want there to be *something* beyond a passing comment which states the “obvious”. Supposedly.
Comment by Zaltys on June 16, 2005 at 1:24 am
As far as I am aware, the laws of god hold no sway in America. I could invent my own set of laws, and perhaps paint not giving expensive treatments to those unable to afford it as murder, but if my new system of laws hold no official status they would be irrelevant, and it would not be murder.
Besides, I did add further content relating to IVF: Is it worse to kill something (assuming it has had no experiences/effect on the world) than to never have it come into being in the first place? The overall result is exactly the same. The difference is, in the case of IVF a new life actually does come into being. Go go net gain.
Comment by Zaltys on June 16, 2005 at 1:29 am
To clarify: Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is not unlawful. Abortion thus cannot be murder. I don’t really see how I can support this any more – it’s 100% valid. Abortion is killing (although of what remains in debate…), but not murder.
Comment by RazorsKiss on June 16, 2005 at 7:09 am
The point I’m making is that the law of God is always higher, to a Christian, than any law.
But, let me point something out – and let me point it out VERY quickly. There IS NO LAW ALLOWING ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Laws MUST be passed by a legislature. No legislature has passed a law allowing abortion. Abortion was made “legal” by a COURT. Courts *cannt* pass laws – only legislatures can. Thus, it is not “legal” – it is only “PRONOUNCED* “legal” by a judicial fiat.
That, my friend, is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Net GAIN? Fertilize 4 embryos, implant 1, kill the other three?
Net LOSS.
Go read up on IVF.
Abortion is neither lawful, nor morally right. it is murder of children who have VIOLATED no law. how is the death of someone for no violation of a law – lawful?
Comment by Steverino on June 16, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Zaltys, can any Government legislate morality? Consequently can morality be based on legislation?
I think you are setting up a straw man here. If someone was to live in somalia or some other lawless state, does killing an innocent cease to be murder since there is no prevailing law? The idea that the governemnt or some piece of legislation or Judicial fiat could be the definition of “murder” is kinda bogus. All “laws” can do is outline what is enforced by “law enforcement”, it has no bearing on right and wrong…. i.e. a traffic ticket is not evil, but running over your grandmother is. Law and Morality are not one and the same.
It was “legal” for hitler to round up jews in Germany and send them to extermination camps? He went through “legal” channels to get it legitimized. Does that make it not murder? You can change the semantics, but the action is still the same, nomatter what legal jargon is applied to it.
Comment by Steverino on June 16, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Zaltys said,
“Steverino, I’m given to understand that all humans are depraved and evil, and that we are only saved by god’s love. Are you sure it’s wise to engage in such supercilious behaviour?”
Um, in a word, yes. All humans are depraved and evil. All people may not manifest it equally, but yes, all humans beings are, by nature, evil and fallen creatures. Nobody has to teach a child to lie or steal. They just do it. And yes, we are saved by only God’s love. We are saved by his sacrifices for our sins, that is love, and that sacrifice allows us (if we accept it) to enter heaven with Him.
As to the wisdom of engaging in “supercilios behaviour”, I would ask this. What if you are wrong? What will you have lost? What have I lost if I am wrong? That’s a big gamble friend. I would consider it unwise to throw out everything I say as “supercilious” because I believe Christianity is the only way to heaven.
Comment by Zaltys on June 16, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Hm, I tried to post a comment earlier but it doesn’t seem to have stuck. I’ll see if this one does (could be there’s some kind of approval mechanism in place I guess).
RK: Come now, you know I rarely post without sufficient research. I’m talking about a net gain in alive people using IVF versus not using IVF. It does, again, beg the question: Given that the embryos will have had no experiences or effect on the world, is it worse to kill them than it is to never allow them to come into being in the first place?
On the point of murder, pretty much, yeah. Killing is not murder unless it is unlawful – I agree, it’s a matter of semantics, but it irritates me nonetheless. Of course, it’s even less murder when the objects in question aren’t human.
I absolutely agree that law and morality are not the same – in fact, this is a point I often argued with RK way back when. The fact remains that murder is specifically connected to law. it’s not important really,though.
My point on your supercilious behaviour was the level to which you set yourself above the ‘unsaved’. It’s in your nature to be depraved and evil as well as it is in the nature of those who aren’t ‘saved’. As far as I am aware, being ‘saved’ doesn’t make you any less likely to manifest these characteristics, but simply opens you up to god’s forgiveness for them. I didn’t consider what you said supercilious because you’re a Christian, but because you were acting in such a manner.
Comment by Jim Thio on October 24, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Square water melons and genetically engineered food are samples that once in a while, life is created. Not a proof, but a plausibility.