Posted on 02/25/2018 7:49:33 AM PST by SamAdams76
I don't normally get involved in abortion discussions. I'm against it but I mostly keep that thought to myself as both sides of the issue are so emotionally invested in their point of view. I don't reckon I'm going to change anybody's mind one way or the other so I just avoid the subject as much as possible. But put me down as against it. I'm a man so it's easier for me to take this position. But I can tell you that I provided for all my children and actively participated in properly raising them to adulthood and independence. So I put my money where my mouth is. As a father, I took full responsibility for my offspring, as my wife can attest!
Anyway, in the shower this morning, I was thinking about the war that the left has launched against our Founding Fathers and white men of that period in general. The main beef that the left seems to have against them is that they were slave holders.
Now I'm not an ignoramus like those on the left so I know that relatively few people of that era were actually slave holders. But the left continues to stoke the flames on the subject and try to make white people of today feel guilty about it when in fact none of us living actually had anything to do with it - nor do we have any interest in bringing it back.
So those who have read this far are probably thinking where the hell I'm going with this and what does slavery have to do with abortion anyhow?
Well here's my tie-in: Back in the slavery era, our society was basically divided between those who defended slavery and those who were vehemently opposed to it for moral reasons (abolitionists). Both sides of the issue found no common ground and the end result was a bloody civil war in our country that lasted for years and took the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Even decades later, the nation was still not completely healed.
Any reasonable person today can see slavery for the evil it was but why did not everybody see it that way back then? Entire books have been written on why seemingly intelligent people not only thought slavery okay but practiced it as well. So I won't explore the reasons why in this post. History is always a relative thing. In medieval times, it was considered normal for soldiers to rape and pillage the towns they conquered and today, we see it as the barbarism that it was.
So I'll simply state that in the year 2018, all of us can now agree that slavery was a bad thing and it is a good thing that it is no longer in practice (in our country anyhow).
I think we are headed down the same road with abortion. Not that I'm expecting a bloody civil war over it (the actual practice of abortion is bloody enough). But I think 200 years from now, a more enlightened people will look back on our era and scratch their heads on how a supposedly intelligent people could tolerate such a brutal practice in their society regarding the killing of unborn children - for convenience!
Yes, I'm stating, rather optimistically, maybe even naively, that our future generations will see abortion in this era the same way that we today, view the era of slavery. If so, I'm glad to be on the side of the abolitionists and not the abortionists. Let the record reflect that in case any of my descendants come across this post in the 23rd Century.
Anybody from the left reading this may scoff and laugh at me for my naivety. But to them I say that if they were to time-travel to say 1820, and attempt to lecture slave holders on the barbarity of their practice, they would be met with the same scorn.
Well, that's my deep thought for this Sunday!
Very thought provoking post Sam. Thank you.
I know there is a God, and that He hates injustice .... I see the storm coming, and I know that his hand is in it.
-Lincoln
15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.
17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
20 The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.
21 The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.
22 The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.
23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.
24 The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
25 The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
26 And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away.
27 The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
28 The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:
29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.
30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.
31 Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them.
32 Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand.
33 The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway:
34 So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.
35 The Lord shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.
36 The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.
37 And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee.
38 Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather but little in; for the locust shall consume it.
39 Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for the worms shall eat them.
40 Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olive shall cast his fruit.
41 Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.
42 All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume.
43 The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.
44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.
45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:
46 And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.
47 Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;
48 Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the Lord shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.
49 The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
50 A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:
51 And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee.
52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:
55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.
56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,
57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, The Lord Thy God;
59 Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.
60 Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee.
61 Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
62 And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the Lord thy God.
63 And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
-Moses
One way or another, the abortion culture will be over within a few decades ...
Well thought, well said.
As with slavery, the coming of a clearer view of justice will demand thoughtful persistent advocates and sacrificial witnesses. In retrospect history may seem to roll; it doesn’t seem to to those pushing it.
I don’t normally get involved in abortion discussions. I’m against it but I mostly keep that thought to myself as both sides of the issue are so emotionally invested in their point of view. I don’t reckon I’m going to change anybody’s mind one way or the other so I just avoid the subject as much as possible. But put me down as against it. I’m a parent and a former fetus, so it’s easier for me to take this position . . .
[Sorry, I like your posts, including this one, but that’s how I would rephrase your statement.]
I accept your suggested revision!
All of us were former fetuses, including those on the other side of this argument. We should always point that out.
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary on a subject which would have been, in America's founding era, an unthinkable outcome of the philosophical and Constitutional ideas of Creator-endowed life, rights, liberties and laws to protect them which underlay the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States of America.
Yet, since the late 1800's, another, cultish and opposing ideology seems to have permeated--(and seems to dominate)-- much of the body politic.
In the 2016 election, Hillary's flat-out ideological merger with Bernie's Socialist agenda "outs" an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard and unbending stand on abortion, a stand previously described and declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.
The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Of course the pro-abortion agenda completely discards the legal standing of the father. In every other aspect of law that involves children, fathers have rights.
It is easy for many women to take a politically pro-abortion position while identifying as personally pro-life, because those women know that the lives of their own preborn baby daughters and sons will never be at risk.
For a man to surrender to abortion being legal, however, is him surrendering to a legal state of affairs in which his own preborn baby daughters and sons can be murdered by someone else.
Abortion is based on an alleged right to kill the baby, which is why with late-term abortion, A/K/A partial-birth abortion, the baby is not just delivered early, concluding the pregnancy, but is also killed.
Yup you can take the analogy further and say that in both cases, the dispute turned on a Supreme Court case defining a subclass of humans as being without rights, for the convenience of others.
However, while the slave in Biblical law was property, it was human property, not a mere animal which could be killed without guilt of capital crime, or a piece of cellular growth to be excised like a cancer.
Instead, the Law stated,
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. (Exodus 21:20-21)
On v. 20 the classic commentator John Gill (who researches Jewish commentary) provides: "he shall be surely punished; or condemned to the punishment of being slain with the sword, as the said Targum and Jarchi explain it: this law was made to deter masters from using severity and cruelty towards their servants.
The contextual purpose was to deter death, and comes after the general command, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death," (Exo 21:12) and is followed by "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Exodus 21:24) And thus the law for killing a slave seems to be the same as the law for a free man, with a distinction in both cases being made btwn fatal wounds and non-fatal:
And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. (Exodus 21:18-19)
The presumption is that a physical injury would either result in quick death, such as in bleeding out in a day when there even the most rudimentary medical care was absent (life was tough!), and otherwise the person would recover.
Debilitating injury is also dealt with, but first the differences btwn the slave and the free man is that with the slave, a rod is used, indicating it being a matter of discipline, whereas in the other case the injury is with a fist, and with the cost of medical care being laid upon the guilty party, unlike in the case of slaves, in which the owner would be hurting himself by hurting his servant, both by injury or abuse which mandates freedom or compelled the slave to run away, and who was not to be returned to his owner ( slaves also could own property, even other slaves themselves: (2 Samuel 19:17 KJV).
And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. (Exodus 21:26-27)
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
And as in judicial law today, laws serve as principals out of which other judgments can be extrapolated - and Israel had courts and judges - so that this judgment regarding freedom for the loss of a tooth might also be applied to similar injuries, based on principal.
Thus if abortion and slavery are to be basically comparable, then the law would would make the former a capital crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.