Watch this terrific 33-minute documentary in which Ray Comfort asks people some very difficult questions.

The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human in the sense of being an image of God ... -- Adolph Hitler

H/T - Would you do it?

P.S. - Bloggers! Post this video and make it go viral!

Difficult Questions is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

Speaking of friends, Ted Lacksonen decided to jump into the abortion debate a couple days ago, and made what I thought was a good case for why a woman has an inalienable right to an abortion. What I found most interesting is that, he neither denies the humanity of the fetus, nor insists that the natural (inalienable) right to life rests on religious dogma. Instead, he frames the abortion debate as a clash between rights: "The right to life of the unborn fetus, and the right to physical autonomy of the pregnant woman."

I agree with Ted that the abortion debate is about a clash of rights. I also agree that both camps - "pro-choice" and "pro-life" - give little weight (if any) to each others genuine concerns. But I disagree with him that "a woman has an inalienable right to an abortion." Now, let's see if I can make my case as amiable as Ted made his.

Please read Ted's case first: What is the Abortion Debate About, Really?

When does life begin?

I'd like to start where we both agree - a fetus is a human being.

Let me make it simple: life begins at conception, and there is no serious debate about that point. All this “heartbeat,” “survival outside the womb,” and “blob of tissue” nonsense is just what I called it, nonsense.

The dispute over "when life begins" is really an argument over the question: "When does that fetus become a person endowed with the same natural rights as a developed human being?" But this is a philosophical and/or dare I say, religious issue. After all, science cannot prove the personhood of anyone. So, the question we should be asking is: "At what point does an individual physical human being come into existence?"

Science can and does answer this question. In brief: You were a human zygote, a human embryo, a human fetus, a human infant, a human child, and you're now a human adult. You are, and always have been, a human. A unique human at that. At no point, from conception to adulthood, were you anything other than a human being.

Killing another human being is the ultimate form of aggression. Especially a small, helpless fetus that is guilty of nothing more than waking up suddenly in a woman's womb. Since the use of lethal force is justified at times, let's stop pretending abortion is anything other than what it is, and deal with it accordingly.

As Camille Paglia says, "[T]he pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand ... I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue."

Abortion

While eager to point out that the Constitution protects the right to life—which it does—abortion foes give little weight to the right to the inalienable right to control one’s physical being, which I call the right to physical autonomy; the right to do what you wish with your body without interference from the government or any other person.

So yes, you heard me say it: A woman has an inalienable right to an abortion. (She also has an inalienable right to chop off her left hand, and both are manifestations of physical autonomy.) Imagine that our old friends Steve and Susie Citizen became stranded on an island. Susie has an inalienable right to her physical autonomy, and thus, can resist his amorous affections. If she succumbs and becomes pregnant, she has an inalienable right to resist his efforts to force her to carry it to term. The question is whether a state should protect the unborn fetus’s right to life at the expense of the pregnant woman’s right to physical autonomy.

Let's say our friend Susie decided to sail across the Atlantic Ocean. Having enjoyed smooth seas and solitude for days, she's startled when she hears loud noise behind her. When Susie turns around to investigate the noise, she finds a wet and disheveled man climbing onto her boat.

"My ship sank," he says, "I've been clinging to the mast for days. I'm so grateful you came along. I had almost given up."

In shock, Susie stares at him for a moment, then walks across the deck and shoves him back into the ocean. "He was a trespasser who infringed on my property and solitude," she consoles herself, "and the idea that I’m somehow compelled to accommodate him is ridiculous. What am I, his slave?"

In most people's view, Susie's justification is pathetic and she's guilty of murder. Even if we agree that indeed, the man was trespassing on Susie's boat. His death sentence remains unjust.

If Susie can't throw the man overboard, does this put her at his mercy?

No, she is not at his mercy. Susie doesn't have to go anywhere she wasn't already going before, and she isn't compelled to keep him aboard one second longer than necessary to bring him to safety either. Once she reaches a populated land, he's off the boat and her responsibility for him ends.

Let's take a look at abortion in light of this analogy. A woman may not have intended to carry the "passenger" she's confronted with, and may even find his presence inconvenient and annoying. However, it's certainly not the "passenger's" fault he finds himself there, and he has committed no wrongful act against her either. Therefore, deliberately killing the "passenger" is an unjust act of extreme aggression. In other words, abortion is murder.

Individual Sovereignty

Maybe you found that analogy rather unconvincing. Because as a sovereign individual, a woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases. A woman even has the "right to chop off her left hand" if she so desires. Her body is her own. Not only do I completely agree, but I suspect most readers of this blog accept the primacy of individual sovereignty too. But to cede to a woman the power of life and death over another life just because it's inside her body, limits the right of sovereignty to some but not all.

If individual sovereignty is to mean anything, then all individuals must be sovereign. And for an individual to be sovereign over herself at any point in life, she must be recognized as sovereign at all points in her life. So, just because a new life currently resides inside the woman's body, does not make it part of her body. Therefore, an abortion is not the same as chopping off one's hand. Abortion is the killing of another individual.

Furthermore, to say that just because this life happens to be inside a woman's body gives her sovereignty over it is to say that possessing the power of life and death gives her the right to exercise that power. At it's root, this is might makes right. Or as Camille Paglia bluntly says, "the extermination of the powerless by the powerful." If we allow this line of reasoning to be used, individual sovereignty is rendered meaningless altogether.

A Woman's Right to Choose

A woman cannot simply "choose," she must choose to do something. And in the abortion debate, her "choice" is whether or not to kill another human. As we discussed earlier, from conception right up through today, you have always been a human being. After all, humans to not give birth to cats, dogs, or lemurs. To say that women have the "right to choose" then, implies once again, that might makes right, so therefore they can kill another human for any reason they choose.

Summary

I realize this post creates more questions than it provides answers. I know there are "holes" in my arguments too. Abortion is a complicated (and touchy) subject that requires much more thought than I can offer in a single blog post. My goal here was simply to demonstrate that the abortion question isn't as simple as this:

Should a state, and to what extent, intrude on a woman’s inalienable right to physical autonomy and use its police powers to effectively occupy her womb and force her to carry a pregnancy to term in order to protect the inalienable right to life of the unborn living child who is defenseless to prevent an act of homicide.

Personally, I am against abortion. Not only do I believe the right to life is inherent in every human being, but that life is the very pith of all our rights. For without life, no other rights matter. Meaning life must be protected jealously.

As I said earlier, killing another human being is the ultimate form of aggression. Especially a small, helpless fetus that is guilty of nothing more than waking up suddenly in a woman's womb. It had no control over being there, but it's mother certainly did. Getting pregnant doesn't exactly happen by accident.

If an unborn child (the most helpless of us all) is not sovereign and entitled to protection of life, then to be consistent, no one is entitled to protection of life. It's the powerful vs. the powerless. Might makes right.

Self-Ownership and the Right to Life is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

Evangelical Christian leader James Dobson withdrew his support of Kentucky Senate candidate Trey Grayson (the Republican Establishment favorite) today, throwing his support behind Rand Paul instead.

Why? "Senior members of the GOP" lied.

Dobson: GOP misled me on Paul

Christian conservative leader James Dobson withdrew his endorsement of Kentucky Senate candidate Trey Grayson Monday, switching his support to Rand Paul’s campaign and accusing “senior members of the GOP” of misleading him about Paul’s record on abortion.

“I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent,” Dobson explained. “But now I've received further information from OB/GYNs in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself.”

Dobson’s reversal is an embarrassment for Grayson’s campaign, which touted the religious leader’s support last week ... Grayson, who serves as Kentucky’s secretary of state, has struggled in the polls against Paul, an ophthalmologist, with the primary just weeks away.

Now, Paul's campaign is featuring Dobson's support in a wave of radio ads across the state, on news and Christian radio stations.

We could just brush this lie about Rand Paul's record on abortion off, noting the Establishment's despair over their power slipping away. Not that that's a legitimate excuse, mind you, just a reason.

The problem is that they haven't a pro-life leg to stand on.

Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood, one of the world's biggest abortion providers, received government grants and contracts of $350 million for fiscal year 2007-2008 and $337 million for fiscal year 2006-2007. According to their website, Planned Parenthood's fiscal year ends on June 30. In other words, Planned Parenthood received $687 million during the last 2 years of George W. Bush's presidency alone.

Well, you say ... It's Congress who holds the purse strings, and those Democrats were in control!

Okay, let's go back another year. During fiscal year 2005-2006, Planned Parenthood received government grants and contracts of $305 million - with a Republican-controlled Congress to boot!

By the way, abortion clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood performed 264,943 abortions in 2005.

Here Comes the Judge

Republican President Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun to the Supreme Court in 1970. Then, in 1973, Blackmun wrote the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, nullifying all state abortion laws and clearing a path for the unfettered slaughter of tens of millions of babies.

Republican President Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens in 1975. Finally retiring from the bench after 35 years, Stevens will go down in history as one of the most left-wing justices to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

Republican President Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981, and then Anthony Kennedy in 1988. Both of whom voted to strike down state restrictions on abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Both also upheld the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act restricting free speech, and have gone on record favoring international law to interpret our Constitution.

Then there's Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), an appeal by Patrick Kennedy who was convicted and sentenced to death for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter, causing severe injuries that required emergency surgery. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion that overturned his death penalty, citing "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

Republican President George H.W. Bush appointed David Souter in 1990, who went on to vote against abortion restrictions, against private property, and in favor of gun regulation. By the time he retired, "Justice Souter was lauded by the left."

Republican President George W. Bush appointed Samuel Alito in 2005, who said he would approach abortion with an "an open mind." Justice John Roberts, appointed by Bush in 2006, said during his confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was "settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis [Latin for 'stand by a decision']."

Not to mention they both voted against the right of habeas corpus in Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Poor Republican Record on Abortion

Even the last Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, said that “certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade." I don't know ... but it's starting to look more like it's the Republican Party Establishment, who thinks that Christian conservatives are "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

UPDATE:

• Republican Party liars

GOP’s Abortion Record is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

Why no abortions on MTV’s 16 and Pregnant?

MTV’s hit show 16 and Pregnant is about to air its second season, with a whole new round of pregnant teenage girls. And while I have mixed feelings about the show in general (does it glamorize teen pregnancy or shine a light on what is a huge problem in America?), there is one thing that irks me to no end. Where are the pregnant teens who choose not to stay pregnant? Where are the abortions?

I realize that it’s controversial to document a teenager who decides to end their pregnancy, but the fact is that nearly a third of all teen pregnancies end in abortion. But if you were to watch MTV, you’d never know that – you’d think all young women choose to go through with the pregnancy.

If MTV really wanted to prove themselves as responsible programmers, they would also feature pregnant teens who have abortions.

You know ... Jessica may have a point ... But something tells me she wouldn't actually want MTV to air the truth. Besides, I'm not sure the ratings-zealots would allow them to air the truth about abortion on regular cable TV in the first place.

After all, the truth is worse than the most violent of horror movies!

I wonder if Jessica would approve of MTV airing an accurate documentary on the history of Planned Parenthood?

One can only wonder ...

H/T - The Daley Gator!

Where are the Abortions? is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog