The Stunning Civil Rights Parallels Between American Slavery and Abortion
Posted: Sunday, March 15, 2009
by Robin Calamaio
RC Publications
The war to recognize the civil rights of the preborn human is already in progress. This will prove to be the great civil rights issue of the 21st century, and the preborn will win on civil rights grounds. The abolition of American slavery has laid much of the groundwork. Here are three parallels. First, the slave was declared property. So too, the preborn. Second, even if recognized as human, the slave was denied the full designation of person or being. So too, the preborn. And third, financially lucrative industries, with accompanying politically powerful lobbies, were built upon the slave in this subjugated state. So too, the preborn. I will take these in order. But, first ....
Parallel One: Property
Slaves were, by law, property - and no different than livestock. Owners had full rights over them - with no legal jeopardy for any reason. Preborns are, by law, property of the expectant mother. These owners have full rights over them - with no legal jeopardy for any reason.
If a slave escaped from his/her owner, the government viewed this as an illegal emancipation (in the South for sure) and the slave was to be captured and returned to his/her owner. This property contract was to be honored by the government and trumped any other consideration. Some believe that if a preborn survives an abortion procedure - this as an illegal emancipation. The owning mother had slated the preborn for death and her property rights remain valid and trump any other consideration. The government is bound to uphold that contract between her and her aborting doctor. Therefore, medical attention, or any attention, must be withheld.
Parallel Two: A Partial Person or Being
Even before the United States became a country, some knew African slaves were illegitimately declared as property. They also knew that a government for and by the people would one day recognize this, and grant them civil rights. But, at the time of this nations birth, the best extraction from the property owners, was a compromise - with slaves declared 3/5ths of a person. It is possible some Southerners may have agreed to this so as to enlarge population numbers - thus securing greater representation in the newly formed House of Representatives. But, I am sure most slave owners despised this deal - as any recognition of a slave approaching the status of personhood or being would have been anathema. Of course, Emancipationists, who knew slaves were 100% persons, were probably just as furious.
Denial of the title, whole person or human being, is the reason slaves and the preborn had/have no civil rights. If the preborn can gain this title, they gain legal standing and the right to life will be immediate. Even those who have been produced by rape or incest will be allowed to live. Even now, some of the preborn are about 2/5ths of a person ... if they happen to be wanted by the mother, they gain a degree of person or being - and are protected from outside-the-mother attack. But, if the mother changes her mind - even in the last second before birth - the preborns person or being status instantly vanishes - along with the legal standing it had. So, this person status must be less than half, because it would surely vote to keep itself from the abortionists ... tools. We will return to this issue.
Being or Person is a Metaphysical Concept
So, who defines what constitutes being or person ... and what is it anyway? Well, your guess is as good as mine. But, no matter what is decided, the moment the magical designation of being is bestowed, there is no physical change on that human life - one way or the other. Whether assigned at conception, the third trimester, or umbilical cord separation - or whether one is deemed a partial person or a complete one, this is all random philosophical opinion that has nothing to do with the physical reality of that human life. This entire being concept is a function of Humanism - an arbitrary assignment based upon the shifting opinions of man. It is void of the hard sciences. It is at this precise point the responsible, secular, evolutionary Atheist enters.
What is Right
For millennia, what was actually taking place in the womb was a mystery. But as science has drawn back the veil, what has been discovered is astounding. It is now established scientific fact that at the instant of conception the entire genetic make-up of a unique adult is fully present. A clock is turned on and an unstoppable march has begun toward that one-of -a-kind adult. All the fertile egg needs is time, nourishment - and the absence of death - and it will become that unique adult 100% of the time. The fertile egg is the young Einstein, Mozart ... or Lincoln. This is hard science. But from an atheistic, evolutionary perspective, this preborn - this fertile egg - is infinitely more. It is the fruit of the evolutionary victor - and, as such, is the most basic block upon which any species line survives. Any one of them may be the key for that species adaptation, evolution, and survival ... or, if lost, a step toward that lines extinction. The preborn is the engine of Evolution - the very heart of the Theory of Evolution - indeed, it is the superlative life form of any species. It is impossible to overstate this point. Failure to understand this is failure to understand the most cardinal element of evolutionary theory. It would be like a Biblical Theist - without a Bible - or a Deist without a God. Therefore, a pro-choice, atheistic Evolutionist is an unresolvable oxymoron. A true Evolutionist is an extreme pro-lifer. In fact, if scientific, evolutionary, atheistic Naturalism prevails as the basis for law, if a choice must be made between the mothers life or the preborns life ... there is not even a question. The preborn will be saved at all costs. All costs.
The atheistic, evolutionary Naturalist does not actually believe in rights. Evolution is based upon what is right - not rights. Humanists invent rights in order to protect the evolutionary inferior from the evolutionary superior. Humanists had to create a right for the mother to kill her preborn, because this activity, on its face, is anti-Evolution. I discuss this in some detail in my ebook, Abortion: How (and Why) Abortion Resides in the Weakest Form of Human Thought and Valuation. So, technically, atheistic Evolutionists are not interested in a right to life for the preborn. They work for recognition, in law, as to what is evolutionarily, scientifically right. I do realize that for Naturalists to engage in the concept of law is a step down. But if they wont, or dont, Humanists will, and do - and what you get is ... the gutting of Evolution.
Blatant Hypocrisy?
Secular Humanists claim to be Evolutionists. Yet, they are the driving force behind the abortion argument, abortion rights, abortion laws, and the abortion industry. Abortion would not exist without them. This is either a demonstration of ignorance, or hypocrisy or fraud - and is stunning beyond words. It gives a Biblical Theist, like me, a great opportunity to mock. Of course, it is possible this whole Theory of Evolution is a great fraud, and no one believes it anyway. But, if I am wrong about this, and there truly are scientists who actually do believe in Evolution, then they are either ignorant of their own theory, or are afraid to cleanse the ranks of psuedo-evolutionists who are attacking their science. Allowing Secular Humanists, who profess to be Evolutionists, to parade in the halls of a societys power, and implement laws, practices and an industry that attacks the very heart of Evolution - is a betrayal of the theory in its most rudimentary foundation. In this matter, it is the true Evolutionists (if there are any) who are ... the blatant hypocrites.
Being - And a Rose
While it is difficult to create an illustration that is a perfect parallel to some situation, such an effort can still be helpful. So, I want to compare this being concept ... to a rose.
Humanists live for being. Once that magical designation is granted, all sorts of protective rights are bestowed. Pro-choice Humanists are similar to ones who live for, and love, a rose, but are totally blind to the life leading up to the rose. They look upon a backyard full of rose bushes - that are not yet sporting roses - with no regard. They see thorn-filled underbrush depleting the soil of nutrients. If these Humanists go out to trample, burn or otherwise clear the ground of these protoplasmic soil leeches ... and spot some rose buds ... that still means nothing. There is no rose. These rose lovers do not understand that the precious jewel of their love ... only arises from the rose-less bush. A scientist (in this instance, a Horticulturist) needs to educate them: No rose bush ... no rose. For our purposes, even a beginning student in any of the life sciences could help the Humanist: No preborn ... no beings. Of course, the Humanist may not be able to get this. So, in service to the Humanists, it behooves the scientist to somehow divert their attention toward some other activity for a while (like playing in traffic or something) and protect the rose bushes. If the scientist is so disposed, he/she could later present the rose lover with a house full of roses. I do realize, the Humanist may never figure out how the scientist was able to do this - and may even regard him/her as a miracle worker. But hopefully, the scientist would gain so much satisfaction by observing the Humanists joy in the midst of all the roses - that the details wouldnt really matter. Accurate science is a great thing.
However, ...
I do believe there may be some Humanists who actually do believe in the validity of accurate science. I do not know who they are, or where they are, but there actually may be some. These Humanists realize the preborn have been conclusively, and scientifically, deemed as100% human life. The preborn are nothing else, and they can not become anything else. Umbilical cord separation is simply a marker on the human life line. So too is walking, the onset of puberty, menopause - just natural, developmental body changes along ones life line. To extend protective rights back nine short months - on this potential 100 year life span - is not really that big a step. No new rights are required - just the extension of current post-born human rights to cover the actual life line of a human. So, there is a place in the preborns civil rights quest for sound Humanists. Surely there are some somewhere.
Parallel Three: The Money Industries, and Empires, of Slavery and Abortion
Slavery was propelled by profit. Money from slavery benefitted Southern politicians in the executive, legislative and judicial branches. But, many Southern government officials never owned, or had any intention of ever owning, an African as a slave. For many, this determination arose from their personal faith or religion. But, these same Southern government officials must have also decided it would be improper to impose their religious beliefs on others under their jurisdiction - even though they had the power to do so. Concerning slavery ... they were pro-choice. I am sure they also pointed to constitutional provisions - and legal precedents - that supported slavery in defense of this pro-choice position. Does any of this sound a bit familiar? Well, lets try this.
Abortion is propelled by profit. Money from abortion benefits U.S. politicians in the executive, legislative and judicial branches. But, many U.S. government officials have never aborted, or have any intention of ever aborting, a preborn. For many, this determination arises from their personal faith or religion. But, many of these same U.S. government officials have also decided it would be improper to impose their religious beliefs on others under their jurisdiction - even though they have the power to do so. Concerning abortion ... they are pro-choice. They also point to constitutional provisions - and legal precedents - that support abortion in defense of this pro-choice position.
A pro-choice position created/creates a phenomenal conflict of interest. Slave money flowed into campaign coffers - and who knows what else. Abortion money flows into campaign coffers - and who knows what else. It has always been unrealistic to expect slavery benefitting politicians or abortion benefitting politicians to objectively consider evidences in favor of slaves or preborns as rightly being qualified for civil rights and accompanying protections and opportunities. When slaves were emancipated in The South, the industry, and its money, immediately collapsed. When the preborn gains emancipation, the industry, and its money, will immediately collapse. These politicians of two different eras are bedfellows. They knowingly, willingly, and purposefully accepted/accept cash from those who trafficked/traffic in subhuman flesh. These governing officials choice was/is to protect, promote and permanently encode into law - the wishes, philosophy, priorities, practices and businesses of their donors. Keep the cash coming.
One difference between yesterdays slave industry and todays abortion industry is the general position of the accommodating government officials. Slavery was generally pushed by individual states and the Federal government generally pushed back - seeking to contain slavery. With abortion, it is the Federal government (starting with The Supreme Court) that is generally pushing abortion and individual states are generally pushing back - seeking to restrain abortion. States are building underground railroads inside themselves. And speaking of that ...
The Underground Railroad - Competing Legal Systems
Northern Emancipationists mounted all kinds of rescue operations for the slaves. This included societies, lobbyists, and pro-emancipationist governing officials in all branches of government - especially targeting federal officials. This was all legal. But some people also created physical systems designed to help slaves escape their property owners - The Underground Railroad. I believe this was also legal ... north of the Mason-Dixon line. Of course, Southern slave owners wanted to shut this down - and did have some success in demanding the return of their runaway property. Harboring such a one was like cattle stealing. But, from the slave owners view, this was just picking at the scab. They wanted to remove the entire scab of emancipation, strike down any law that restrained them from owning their property, - and hoped all the Emancipationists would then bleed to death.
South of the Mason-Dixon line, slave owners had their property systems in place that were also legal ... and kept the slaves - slaves. Both sides tried to influence one another, both sides tried to undermine one another, and both sides were ultimately irreconcilable with one another. After decades of contention, it finally became unmistakably clear: One nation can not stand with two sets of laws for the same human group. Hypocrisy and inconsistency in law just cannot continue indefinitely. All law concerning slaves would have to become uniform - one way, or the other. The entire country would have to forever declare slaves as property ... or not. They would have to be recognized as partial persons, and subhuman ... or not. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, along with liberty and justice for all, would have to be extended to them ... or not. The South seceded. The North said, No. The rest is history.
Concerning the preborn and their legal plight - do I even need to insert them in that last two paragraphs above? Ill let you do it. Replace Northern Emancipationists with Pro-lifers and Southern slave owners with Pro-choice advocates and slaves with the preborn. Then, put it all in present tense. After you are done, let us continue to examine more hypocrisy in law - past and present.
Circumstance, or Location, Discrimination
One reality that surely weakened the arguments for slavery, had to be what I call circumstance, or location, discrimination. Think of it this way. Picture two Africans from the same tribe - even identical twins - facing one another. One was standing on the north side of the Mason-Dixon line ... while the other was on the south. Those inches had the twins worlds apart. One was free with multitudes of civil rights, legal protections and legal recourse ... and the other was livestock - with no freedom, no legal protections and no legal recourse. The world of each twin depended upon ... the location of the dirt their feet stood upon. Now, how stupid is that? Law of this type is the fruit of the metaphysical insanity of man - some form of Humanism - that is void of science or Theism. Today, two preborns can be in two wombs that are sitting side by side on a public bus. One is being carried to an abortion clinic as property to be disposed of ... and the other, who happens to be wanted by its mother, is being carried to a baby shower. The one heading to the abortionist has no legal standing or protections. The other is legally protected from the assault of every abortionist on the globe, or any outsider - including an expectant father who kills him/her. Just ask California prisoner, Scott Peterson.
Scott Peterson is currently in prison for murdering his wife. But additional charges were levied for the murder of his eight month old preborn son. The preborn prevailed. Scott received a separate, additional sentence. Yet, at any time in that last month, the mother could have gone to a late term abortionist (i.e., George Tiller in Kansas) and had the preborn killed - with no legal jeopardy for her, the doctor, or any of the supporting staff ... including every governing official who had a part in letting George create and open his business. Scott obviously had a lousy attorney, confused jury or inept judge ... or all the above. Law towards the preborn in the United States is in chaos. Secular Humanists are the culprits. The atheistic Evolutionist must intervene. Lets take a moment to examine the preborns ground of legal standing, which is based upon being ...
Wanted
Evidently, Scott did not want this preborn. Yet, law holds a father like him liable - preborn through 18 years of age. The reason? The mother wanted this preborn. But maybe Scott did not want any children ever ... and his wife had originally agreed to that - but later changed her mind and forgot her birth control. Who knows? Stranger things have happened. Yet, by law, her want - even in deception - trumps Scotts want, even though half of his genes are present in the preborn ... not to mention 18 years and 9 months of financial responsibility. The point is that current law totally ignores the wishes of the father. On the flip side, how many expectant fathers wanted the preborn they sired - yet the mother decided to kill it? The fruit of the evolutionary dominant male victor - in the hands of the impregnated female? A true Evolutionist is nauseated by this. It does not matter if that impregnation is the result of adultery, fornication, rape or any other prohibited, metaphysical value imposed upon the evolutionary victor. What king lion or ruling rooster is so deposed, maligned, imprisoned - or even executed? But, it is all worse than this. Even if a dominant male yields to the metaphysical imposition of marriage - and cooperates with imposed financially liability for an entire family - he has no rights over the fate of the preborn he sires. If the wife wants to kill the preborn at any moment - she can. This should be a lesson to the atheistic Evolutionist. If you give Secular Humanists, with all their contrived rights, an inch, they will take you for more than a mile. They will take you ... to extinction.
Emancipationists
What if the expectant father and just one grandparent on the expectant mothers side ... wants the preborn? These Emancipationists have no legal standing. But, couldnt a legal case be mounted that demonstrates their combined genetic material in that preborn is greater than the mothers alone? Today, Emancipationists, some related to the preborn and some not, surround expectant mothers - and are willing to take on the responsibility for that child. Yesterday, the South was surrounded by Emancipationists, some related to the slaves and some not, who were willing to take on the responsibility of freed slaves. Both groups of Emancipationists willingly acknowledged/acknowledge the sustenance supplied by the slave owner/mother toward their property - and have offered/offer some kind of restitution for their trouble - in return for emancipation. The dirt surrounding these hapless humans was/is occupied by Emancipationists of all kinds. But under Secular Humanist law, the slave owner/mother alone decided/decides the fate of the slave/preborn. Todays Emancipationists are trying to get preborns ... north of the Mason-Dixon line.
The Civil Rights of the Property Owners
When slavery was abolished, slave owners lost none of their personal liberties. The former slave owner could still exercise freedom of assembly, freedom or association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement and all the rest. They were simply prohibited from denying the same to fellow humans. Preborn emancipation will not affect the civil rights of the current property owners either. The expectant mother can still exercise freedom of assembly, freedom or association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement and all the rest. She will simply be prohibited from killing a preborn who had no say on being in her - and has no intention of staying in her. Apart from rape, the expectant mother is an accomplis to the preborn being found in this temporary housing situation ... and now she can kill him/her? No private citizen has ever had a legitimate right to kill another human on grounds such as these. Emancipationists worked to take illegal rights away from slave owners and bestow legal rights upon slaves. Pro-lifers are working for the same goal.
Slave States were identified, isolated, targeted and eventually crushed. But, the preborn population is peppered throughout the entire country. They are subject to death at any moment - a stealth killing veiled as a protected medical procedure. But, unless the pregnancy is far enough along, outsiders may have no clue a preborn is right beside them. And even when a pregnancy is obvious, if that mother does not voice her intention with that preborn, no one knows if it is in imminent danger or not - and by law, that declaration could change at any second anyway. In this matter, two mighty factors are at work against the preborn - their stage of life and the salesman knocking at the door.
Mighty Factor One: The Preborns Stage of Life
At birth, parents are legally accountable caretakers of a dependent. But, human life does not become dependent at birth. It is dependent at conception and remains so through all of infancy ... at a100% rate. Humans must go well into the life line before attaining some percentage of independence. In the United States, many never reach much independence in their entire life span. Food, housing, medical care, utility bills - all these things - are gifts from the government. Millions - and the number is growing - are wards of the State. But even the most aggressive among us rarely achieve 100% independence. It is a matter of degree. Additionally, as one reaches advanced years, dependency usually increases - sometimes reverting back to 100%.
The danger of dependency is that it creates vulnerability. For example, contracts are legal protections because some vulnerability has been created as one is dependent upon a trustworthy performance by another. But, the greater ones dependency - the greater ones vulnerability. Total dependency places one at the total mercy of those who carry the burden of the dependency. For the preborn, there is no culpability for their state of 100% dependency. But, there sure is vulnerability. At times, slaves, who were forced into dependency, were able to mount uprisings. The preborn have no such opportunity. This is an extreme tragedy. I wish they had the power of the prime of life as abortionists came after them with their tools. The attack would end ... differently.
Secular Humanists are amassing quite a track record for attacking the dependent ones around them. In addition to the preborn, euthanasia for the aged population, is the next progressive stop. Secular Humanists also move aggressively, when opportunity arises, to pull the plug on those in some kind of vegetative state - even if there are caretakers around who would take responsibility for the burdens. A highly publicized case, in 2005, was that of Terri Schiavo. And if this economy does severely constrict, the track record of the Secular Humanist does point to the younger, adult wards of the State ... as next. After all, they are being sustained because ... for ... uh, now what was the reason? You see, once their utility becomes somewhat unclear - or ends - so will their rights. Dependency and vulnerability are brothers.
Mighty Factor Two: The Salesman Knocking at the Door
I hate salesmen. Well, maybe I should rephrase that. After all, the last decade ... I have made my living on commission sales. So, what I hate are salesmen who know their target market, know the weaknesses of that target (timing is often critical), know how to cooly field objections and know how to lead their target into an assumptive close. Well, now that I think about it ... thats a lot of what I do. So, I guess it depends on the quality of the product and/or service being sold that really matters.
When a woman becomes pregnant, she has nine months ... to think about it. With a totally dependent being on the way - what type of emotions do you suppose might surface somewhere in those nine months? And, what if the father is out of the picture? And, what if the expectant mother is young and in a shaky external situation (food, housing, job, short on education, etc.)? If I was an abortion salesman - I know exactly who I would target with my services. But my goal, as a medical representative would not be to induce labor ... but to induce panic. What an easy sell. ... and you need to decide now! If you put this off, and the preborn becomes a premature baby, - too late! You are on the hook for the next couple of decades! Panic is where my money is. To induce labor means ... I make nothing.
The abortion industry is packed with salesmen. And these salesmen have a support system second to none. As the industry has matured, a tremendous network has been assembled. It starts with officials in all branches of government who not only provide legal cover, but also promote the industry through many of their projects. For example, the Department of Education has a Public School System full of willing advocates, curriculum, and special events. This is a target market prepped through all the formative years. What a gold mine. When the actual opportunity does arise (pregnancy), all the advertizing has a very good chance of paying off handsomely - especially in the more chaotic of districts. These customers know exactly where to turn. And in appreciation for such access, the industry supports its governing officials ... well. But, this industry does not begin and end with abortions - any more than the slave industry began and ended with the purchase of a few slaves. With time, governmental protection, and some thought, new income streams have a way of surfacing. For example, ...
Breeding
Some slaves were used for breeding purposes. This gave the owners livestock to sell. The abortion industry now has an eye upon embryo breeding and harvesting. All is currently in the research phase, but if therapies come from embryonic stem cell research, the profit potential is unlimited. Massive test tube breeding will occur that produces hapless little embryo livestock - destined for consumption. And the turn around time on these investments is vastly superior to the turn around time for breeding slaves to sell.
If embryonic stem cell therapies do become reality, at some point these will probably be used on wanted preborns. Consumption of one preborn for another preborn will be like the black African slave traders who sold black African slaves. The black slave traders benefitted by this consumption. But, these transactions created a weakening hypocrisy in the entire slavery enterprise. Both were black Africans. Similarly, if embryonic stem cell sellers use unwanted embryos on preborns who happen to be wanted, this consumption will create a weakening hypocrisy in the entire embryonic stem cell enterprise. Both are preborns.
This is all trafficking in human life for profit - each of whom have his/her own unique and complete genetic code. Both enterprises are ultimately the same thing ... just at different stages of life. This is a cosmetic difference.
If I Was Todays Property Owner
... I would attack anything that even suggested the preborn is human. It is a subhuman, non-viable, blob of protoplasm - a leech feeding off the woman. I would seek to create unified Federal law that would totally crush any State or local law that granted legal standing for the preborn in any situation. I would give this law a name that sounded very noble and emancipating. I dont know ... maybe something like ... The Freedom of Choice Act. Yes, an Emancipation Proclamation for expectant mothers! Some might even compare me to Abe Lincoln ... even though it would be exactly backwards. I would get judges in place who would rule to criminalize all opposition to this Act. No parental notification laws. No required waiting periods. No preborn sonograms forced on emancipated expectant mothers. No underage pregnancy reports to any authority. No rulings about wanted or unwanted preborns. I would not allow any legal reference to any preborn as him or her. They would always, and forever, be an it. I would not allow picketing at an abortion clinic. In fact, I would do away with the abortion clinic - and have the procedure institutionalized in all hospitals as part of nationalized health care. I would require every physician and nurse, and all supporting staff, to perform this medical service for any emancipated expectant mother at any time during the preborn period. Failure to comply would be met with felony charges of violating her civil rights, followed by a mandatory prison sentence in the general prison population. Those immediately involved in this crime would have all medical licenses revoked, and the hospital administrators would be fined (at least) with a special fast-track lawsuit venue established for securing damages for the abused expectant mother (using public prosecutors ... already in place). I would set up an internal paramilitary force to root out all rescue efforts - underground railroads - for the preborn. I would target pregnancy support centers and crisis centers (other than my own) - and haul all pro-life subverts before sympathetic-to-my-cause judges. I would order the burning of every copy of this document - and have it designated as hate speech. I would prosecute anyone in possession of it ... with greater penalties for disbursement of it. I would arrest and gag the author and lose the key. Yes, ... this would be my starting point in dealing with the opposition. In a secular society, I would never have to worry about Theism claims, as governance is separated from religion. The only wild card would be the awakening of the sleeping giant - the atheistic Evolutionist. But, maybe there really arent any.
From the Other Side - The Class Action Law Suit or Class Action Lawsuits
Law in the United States has entirely mis-classified two human groups: the preborn and mothers - specifically, expectant ones. They need accurate classification - reclassification - so, isnt this the base from which class action lawsuits arise? Since you have stayed with me this far, I ask for your indulgence as I trace my legal understandings.
First, I am not a lawyer. So, some of my approach may lack the necessary intricacies for the courtroom environment. But, rather than dismiss my points on technical grounds, hear their thrust, and then add the necessary nuances to make this work in the courtroom setting.
In a secular system, it is not necessary to shut down Theism - just keep it, and its arguments for values, out of the legal discussion ... hence, out of law. That creates, by default, a secular law system. The values for derived law then arise from some form of Humanism or from science. If one is an Atheist, then Evolution (Naturalism), and the science necessary for it to be true, is his/her only option for law values. It is phenomenal error to think Humanism and Naturalism agree on values. They do not. In fact, atheistic, evolutionary Naturalism may be more hostile to the values forwarded by Humanism - than is Biblical Theism. I could site endless examples in this regard. Here is one. Most Humanistic systems agree with Biblical Theism that murder is a valid concept (even though they may disagree on what constitutes a murder). The Naturalist rejects any such concept - much less places a moral value of right or wrong upon it. No animal in nature ever murders anything. An animal might kill - but never murder. An animal might kill in a way that is contrary to a species progression (i.e., a hamster mother eating her young, or a human mother killing her preborn), but this is viewed as an evolutionary defect - not a metaphysical, moral one. Of course, it is possible that after careful study, an Evolutionist might conclude that such destructive behavior is a natural evolutionary process designed to take that species to a natural extinction, setting the stage for the advent of some other, more adapted line of creatures. But, at this time, it is impossible for anyone to know this about human mothers and their destruction of their preborn. I discuss this in more detail in, Abortion: How (and Why) Abortion Resides in the Weakest Form of Human Thought and Valuation, pages 18 and19. But, even if scientists somehow prove abortion is Evolutions mechanism leading to human extinction (i.e., we are in an early phase - and the evidence shows this desire is becoming more universal in expectant mothers) that would not affect the mis-classification by Humanists of the preborn and the expectant mother. The point here - I am absolutely certain evolutionary science can be brought to bear in favor of the preborn (and in favor of expectant mothers) so overwhelmingly that current abortion reasonings, practices - and the industry itself - can be totally excised from a secularly governed society. Here are the points.
Current law in the United States classifies all expectant mothers as property owners over an entire segment of humanity. This is a default position that puts all expectant mothers in the same category as yesterdays slave owners. Law has placed every expectant mother ... south of the Mason-Dixon line. This is untenable. If I was an atheistic, Evolutionist woman, I would fight against this State relegated, anti-evolutionary, demeaning position with everything in me. As a defamed woman, I would seek immediate remedy by means of some sort of class action lawsuit. I would find lawyers that would demonstrate harm by this degradation. Experts from the field of Evolutionary theory would be called to explain the supremacy of preborn life over the current generation - and that all expectant mothers are Evolutions gatekeepers for the future of the species - with priceless treasure developing in the womb. Concerning the preborn, I would bring in Naturalists, who are medical scientists, to attack the validity of the concept of being as a basis for law in a secular society. They would go into extreme detail about the preborn being human life and nothing but human life and must be treated as such. The preborn would be elevated to the kings of Evolution - and expectant mothers to its queens ... not some slave/slave owner parallel hoisted on both classes of humans by darkened Humanists. Evolutionarily, I would demand emancipation from such erroneous, State imposed, oppressive, humiliating classifications of property for the preborn, and property owner for the queen of Evolutions jewel. I guess this might need to be two separate class action lawsuits - even though both groups have been melded together by law into this profane slave/slave owner alliance. As a woman, I would want history to show that I sought, and secured, emancipation from such a scientifically defiling classification. I would then see if lawsuits could be brought against all groups who had violated me in this manner. That would include Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, and all similar groups. I would also see if I could seek damages from past government officials (and current ones if not immune) for this travesty as well.
In these courtrooms, I would not allow any discussion about Theism. I would demand all such material be excluded from all proceedings as this is an action flowing from an atheistic evolutionary base. If defendants tried to impugn any of my witnesses with motives of a veiled Theism, I would seek to immediately file slander lawsuits against them. I would petition the court for contempt charges if they tried to muddy the course of the lawsuit with this diversion.
There are two other angles from which to legally attack on behalf of the preborn that have no parallel to the slavery situation. One is from a newer area of law and the other is from an area of currently accepted folklore.
Angle One: Age Discrimination
This is a relatively new area of civil law, primarily focused on age discrimination in the workplace in hiring, promotion, and firing practices. But, this area of emerging civil law could probably by crafted and applied toward the preborn. If judges can take a Constitutional right to privacy and apply it to a mothers womb, why cant an agenda driven judge take this age-discrimination civil right and find it for the preborn in that mothers womb? After all, isnt it precisely because of its age - preborn - that it is open for sanctioned attack against it? As soon as it reaches a certain age, all attackers are prosecuted. The preborn is discriminated against because of his/her age.
Angle Two: The Viability Myth - Unacceptable Folklore
A cornerstone argument for denying the preborn the designation of being or a person is ... the preborn is not viable outside of the womb. This position, or any similar derivation, is truly insane. The preborn are extremely viable in their environment. To expect, or require, they live outside of that, in order to be deemed viable, is a scientific absurdity. (That last sentence was hard to write, and is still hard for me to follow, because the thinking is so cockeyed.) The same logic would require that we, as adults, be able to live in their environment in order to be declared viable. Simple science must be called upon to refute this Humanistic assertion spawned from madness. The second trimester and the third trimester are the most viable times in the entire human life line. Hard science must prevail and silence this folklore.
By the way, the extreme measures often employed to save premature babies is another glaring hypocrisy. They are called babies and have all the civil rights protections afforded any other person. Yet many are artificially sustained, at great expense, until they can more fully adapt to this environment. But, the fact that any premature baby can survive in an environment he/she is not yet ready for - is a testament to that ones adaptability and hardiness. No adult can adapt to the preborns environment. So, who actually is the most viable?
What the Flat Earth, the Common Cold, and the Preborn Have in Common
I am of the conviction that if a society is stable long enough, eventually scientific truths prevail over cultural myths. The old guard eventually dies. At one time, most believed the earth was flat. But, that error had a season. Eventually scientific truth prevailed (although there is still a Flat Earth Society on our sphere). Today, many believe the common cold comes from ... cold weather. Hence the name. But science has conclusively demonstrated that of the scores of known cold viruses, none of them care about outside temperatures. Concerning abortion, a percentage of the populace will always believe the preborn are subhuman, protoplasmic leeches - science be damned. But, scientific fact about preborn humanity will eventually triumph over the present insanity of motherhood property rights, age discrimination, and corrupted government officials, and all the rest. This might be a long, long battle (like the emancipation of American slaves), but, it could change quite rapidly. In this country, a handful of judges imposed this errant Humanism on the entire nation. The way our government is constituted, it would only take the conversion of a few select people for this entire area of law to be reversed and abandoned. Legal precedents have never permanently thwarted genuine conversion of thought in the judiciary.
One difference between American slavery and abortion is obvious: one is litter along the highway of human history, and the other is still on the road. But, this will change. It is a matter of destiny. That will create another parallel between the two. And just as everyone involved in the slave industry - active and passive - are now seen as litter along the human highway, this too is the destiny of all involved in the abortion industry - active and passive. That is just the way it is ... and will be. Open debate, will eventually yield to science - even if Theism, in any of its forms, is absent from the debate. Just as science has dismissed flat-earth believers from its ranks, and medical science has cast out those who attribute the common cold to cold weather, so also, all abortion advocates are going to find themselves scientifically ... aborted.
Conclusion
Here is the greatest parallel between slavery and abortion. There was/is nothing right about either one. Every argument began/begins with flawed assumptions. The philosophy was/is groundless. The law was/is contradictory, selective, and corrupted by money and power. The rationalizations were/are twisted. The hypocrisy was/is glaring - even blinding ... to anyone with eyes. And accurate physical science was/is absolutely absent. Both are built upon blood. Both are built upon oppression. Both are demonstrations of the darkness and insanity of man. Yet, the defenders of both believe they were/are ... right.
The parallels between the American slave industry and the Abortion industry are so close in civil law and practice that one wonders if this culture has a collective, subconscious, prejudicial discriminatory streak in it. A segment of the populace regularly arises and deprives some group in its midst of basic human rights - at one time, slaves, at another, the preborn. It is bent on giving illegitimate rights to one group at the expense of another group, or class, of humans. These rights are against the will of the dominated group. Even late term preborns have been observed recoiling from the attacks of the abortionist. One would hope these victims would be granted their turn to respond. But, I believe they will be trumped by Someone else. Vengeance is Mine. I will repay saith the Lord (Ro 12:19). The Author of Biblical Theism will not always be excised from the discussion.
As an aside, I am always quite amazed when I hear an adamant abortion advocate ... who has descended from slave lines. The very things their forefathers were deprived of ... they are now actively imposing on the preborn, even in the face of scientific evidence that refutes such activity as being valid.
Personally, I approach the matters of life from a Biblical Theist perspective. That means, I study to learn Gods position on a matter, and when I am convinced I have found that, I adopt, and forward it. But concerning rejection by a secular governing system of all such values, in some ways, I cant say that I blame them. Professing Biblical Theists disagree among themselves on almost everything. There is no consensus on money (see, No Tithe for the Christian), or Evolution and longevity models (see, Death and the Bible), or even the validity of capital punishment by government (see, Capital Punishment and the Bible). Internally, they fight over church governing structure, the role of women, end time scenarios, baptism, homosexuality, translations - the list is almost endless. They cant even agree on what the Bible teaches about love (See, Love and the Bible). For the Secularist, who is not the least bit interested in Biblical authority on matters anyway, these contrary positions are just more garbage. The easiest thing to do - indeed, the only thing to do - is to sweep that off the legal table and start from scratch. Increasingly, that is exactly what law in the United States is doing. And while I do not believe atheistic Evolution is correct science on many fronts (see, I Went From a Believer to an Unbeliever ... in Evolution), it can - and should - be used to refute an even weaker Humanism.
Well, I am sure there are many other parallels between slavery and abortion than what I have forwarded. If any of you can expand this train of thought, please do. But, concerning all the womens rights arguments, well, we have heard all that from slave owners and their advocates. This has been fully weighed and found ... wanting. So, in the preborn civil rights struggle of the 21st century, on which side of this new Mason-Dixon line do you reside?
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Robin has been a Christian since 1977. Educationally he has a BA, Bus. Admin (Milligan College '90) and Master of Divinity (Emmanuel School of Religion '92). He addresses the Abortion Argument in one ebook - and has written others on death, no tithe for the Christian, love, and capital punishment. You can find each Free Christian Ebook at freelygive-n.com!
This Article has been viewed 155 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)Robin, you presented many outstanding points for reflection and consideration. That said we are in the age of enlightenment, new age and as a Christian you can understand the way this nation is moving. It certainly is toward relativism. Who says so. Yet other then length, many have a hard time reading, much less comprehending even a few paragraphs. However, it was really a good position document. Best wishes, keep it up.Thanks for the kind words. I do realize this is a bit long for some - but this is what it took for me to get it all out. - Robin Calamaio
Just to redress the balance a litte, it should be pointed out that much of the "justification" for slavery and the slave-trade came from the Bible.The majority of the facilitators of the slave trade were Christian.""[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."-Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America"Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage."-Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastorOf course, there were Christians who opposed the slavery too. Charles Darwin for one (who later became agnostic).You say abortion "attacks the very heart of Evolution" and make accusations of hypocrisy. You are wrong to do so.Evolution in particular, and science in general, does not tell us what is right or wrong; it does not tell us what we should or should not do. It is amoral (not immoral, or moral).There is therefore nothing hypocritical about accepting the validity of evolution whilst still being in favour of giving women the right to abort (or contraception for that matter - opposition to which is killing countless babies, children and adults in Africa right now)."In this matter, it is the true Evolutionists (if there are any) who are ... the blatant hypocrites".I'm a "true evolutionist" (as are well over 90% of scientists, and the Pope... and the Archbishop of Canterbury, among many others), and I am pro-choice.I am not a hypocrite.Hello Ben, - couple of points.
This article has nothing to do with Christianity or Biblical Theism. Biblical Theists agree on almost nothing - including American slavery at that time. I am sure you can also find professing Biblical Theists who are pro-choice based upon some perverse grounds. You are actually validifying my point about why this abortion argument must be pursued from Naturalism.Concerning Evolution and hypocrisy - Evolution and Humanism are competing systems - diametrically opposed. “Rights” are the easiest way to see points of departure from Naturalism. Evolution does identify, when possible, what is right - in the sense of consistency with species progression, or wrong - some non-beneficial adaptation or mutation. This has nothing to do with moral judgments. Are Evolutionists neutral about a species developing artificial means to kill its preborn population? Or would Evolutionists be alarmed about the future of a species that developed such a capacity towards itself? Abortion is a function of Humanism and requires “rights” to negate what would generally be right in a beneficial species progression.But to take one step back, in my ebook on abortion, when addressing this, I forward the point that if I was an Evolutionist, I would suspect (and probably conclude at some point) that the introduction of a metaphysical capacity to our species may be a lethal one - and it will take some time before extinction plays out. Abortion “reasoning” is but one evidence toward such a conclusion.Anyway, glad you read it."Concerning Evolution and hypocrisy - Evolution and Humanism are competing systems - diametrically opposed. "
They are not diametrically opposed.
Evolution is a scientific theory (and an observed fact).
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies.
Far from being opposed, they are simply unrelated - they are in different arenas.
"Are Evolutionists neutral about a species developing artificial means to kill its preborn population? Or would Evolutionists be alarmed about the future of a species that developed such a capacity towards itself?"
As mentioned before, evolution has nothing to do with moral judgements.
Therefore being an evolutionist or not has no bearing on an individual's position with regards to those issues or any other moral issues.
You might as well ask "would Red Socks fans be alarmed about the future of a species that developed such a capacity towards itself?" - being a Red Socks fan (or not), or being an evolutionist (or not) is irrelevant with regard to being alarmed or not.
Some evolutionists happen to support abortion, others happen to oppose it.
"Abortion is a function of Humanism and requires “rights” to negate what would generally be right in a beneficial species progression"
Many humanists don't support abortion (and many non-humanists do), so I don't think it is correct to say that abortion is a function of humanism.Ben
Humanism is moral judgments. I keep saying Evolution has none. To observe a species indiscriminately killing its preborn violates evolutionary science in the progression of a species - and the grounds forwarded for this activity are not scientific - but humanistic. There is only one ground upon which an Evolutionist could conclude abortion is progressive, and you have not yet mentioned that.
Humanism is a moral system - and it violates Naturalism point by point. Morals are metaphysical products. I have made the case in other writings that a Naturalist might be willing to patronize such inventions - until they undermine evolutionary principle. I know you see the difference between a king lion with a pride - and an executed adulterer. One species operates by Naturalism (like all the rest) and another by metaphysics (the only species to do that). As an Evolutionist, I would view such behavior in a species as a sure sign of heading toward an evolutionary speedy demise. It is physically weakening itself - and other species lines that are not supplanting its progression by metaphysics - will opportunistically arise. It could be a microbe, parasite - who knows - but with so many former species extinctions, it is clear that competition in life is extreme. Humanism is anti- evolutionary. It is a moral system. In its purist form, it is anti-science. It calls all its social sciences - science - but these should be labeled social observations and statistics or some such thing - not science.
If you want to continue this, please confirm or correct this. In an effort to identify the framework from which you are coming, I think you are a Humanist in the vein of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto I and II. The signatories are Secular Humanists and professed evolutionists (most probably atheistic evolutionists).
Take this as sparring - not personal. And if at any point an impasse is finally reached, that is ok. Also, these comments can be left or deleted upon request."There is only one ground upon which an Evolutionist could conclude abortion is progressive, and you have not yet mentioned that."
Scientifically, an evolutionist could conclude selective abortion is progressive, in the specific objective amoral context of species survival, in the right circumstances (such as aborting children conceived when insufficient resources are available to best raise them - more efficient to cut your losses early and save resources to nurture a child later on).
This actually happens in nature - some mothers eat their young if food is scarce, to regain the nutrient resources for use in the next brood.
But what happens in nature is not what we are talking about.
We humans have largely (although not entirely) escaped the "tooth and claw" struggle of natural selection because we have evolved sufficiently advanced consciousness and reasoning ability to make rational choices.
We can now choose to act according to reason rather than blind instinct. As famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins puts it, we can "escape the tyranny of the selfish gene".
An evolutionist is a person. They can make make their own judgement about whether abortion is progressive or not in a moral or cultural context.
Just because someone is an evolutionist doesn't mean they have to believe "survival of the fittest" or "survival of the species" are necessarily desirable to us as reasoning, moral beings. Virtually no evolutionists are "social Darwinists" (social Darwinists are committing the naturalistic fallacy).
Humanism is not anti-science. Humanism speaks about moral right and wrong (subjective), science speaks simply about what is (objective). To be anti-science, humanism would have to make claims about objective reality, and it doesn't.
To borrow a term from Stephen J Gould they are "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA).
It is theoretically possible (although I think highly unlikely, and entirely unsupported by the evidence) that adapting a humanist morality could be damaging for the survival of our species, i.e. there is a possibility it could reduce our "fitness". But even if that was the case, it wouldn neither make evolution less true, or make humanist ethical principles less "right".
I am technically an agnostic atheist, and largely agree with the principles of humanism (although I don't like the species-centric nature of the term "humanism").
I do not deny the fact of evolution, and I accept the neo-Darwinist theory that explains it as being the most accurate explanation yet known.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.