This is what happens when a culture of people are conditioned, by religion or politics or other, to devalue human life on a regular and systematic basis.  In this case, and the case of Islam as a whole (and don’t kid yourself for a second that this has nothing to do with religion), Sharia Law allows for and even demands the complete disregard for the sanctity of human life to the point that men are expected, excused and even extolled for murdering their own wives and daughters if they should break faith in any way (to be judged, of course, by the same primitive cowards that throw the stones and light the fires).

Unbelievable…because the kid didn’t finish his homework.

P.S. What other group devalues human life on a regular and systematic basis?  Liberals.  (See abortion)

* I’m not actually quoting a specific source, just the general apologetic commentary that we keep hearing from media and cowardly political leaders who won’t call a spade a spade for fear of escalation or (worse for them) vote loss.

I find this argument to be intentionally myopic, since all that is required to identify the beginning of life is a simple examination of the characteristics of life. We can perform such an examination in a single sentence: if it requires nourishment in order to continue growth and development, it is alive.

Now for the argument of when a “fetus” becomes “human,” that’s just a simple: if the end or objective of development of an organism is human, the organism is effectively human. It doesn’t matter how far along that development life cycle the organism has progressed. Trying to claim that an unborn fetus is not human simply by virtue of the fact that it has not yet left the womb is about as logical as arguing that I am not a citizen of my country except when I have left my house.

In a previous post, I made the assertion that abortion is effectively murder, to which my liberal opponent counterclaimed that life begins at birth. He made this claim in an attempt to destabilize my assertion on the grounds that all claims made without “basis for [the] position” carry equal validity. So since I did not provide a “basis,” nor did he, his claim is as valid as mine. If he were right–if there were no absolute truth against which all claims must be measured–I would agree with him. It saddens me that some humans can be so committed to an agenda that they need certain obvious truths to be spelled out for them, and that in the absence of a valid argument in their favor, rather than admitting to their error when truth is spelled out for them, they will resort to “lawyer ball,” demanding the definition of the letters.

But since this world seems to suffer from an ever-growing epidemic of self-imposed blindness, here’s the spelling again: if something is alive (as we have already established) and its life is terminated with pre-meditation, it is murder. Can anyone seriously argue that an abortion is not the pre-meditated termination of life? How else is murder defined? Would you prefer the term “homicide?” That’s just the “lawyer ball” term for a murder that has not been through the courts yet.

A shining example of the “life begins at birth” problem is found in the exchange between former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Cal) that I pointed to in another previous post.

I’d like to see what you liberals have to say about that exchange relative to the “life begins at birth” argument.

I think the truth behind their opposition has different roots.

First, it seems obvious to me that this ban really makes very little difference to the overall abortion issue, at least from the liberal perspective. The IDX procedure isn’t the standard choice, so it’s not like the ban is going to create a dramatic shift in medicine. I think that the opponents oppose this ban so vehemently because, to them, it strikes fear into their hearts about the future solvency of the right to have an abortion all together. Their passion is somewhat misdirected, then, on this partial-birth abortion ban decision, because they’re not really mad about that; they’re afraid for the future of Roe v. Wade.

Many opponents also claim that their real problem with the decision is that it represents an encroachment of government into matters in which it should not be involved. In this case, the truth of what they are saying is that government’s regulation of medical procedures is an affront to science–the religion of liberalism. This ban, in their estimation, is an attack on their god. After all, “how dare the government question and subvert the supremacy of the medical and scientific communities!? Science is infallible and should be allowed to act in whatsoever manner it sees fit relative to what is best for individuals and humanity in general!”

The issue is really about weighing the lesser of two evils. On one side of the scale, the evil of government infringing on the rights of citizens (which is the core evil from which our Constitution was born); on the other side of the scale, the evil of murder (and let’s not mince words–ending a life, no matter at what level of development, is murder). At face value, murder seems to be obviously the greater of the two evils, and at this point liberals might be tempted to launch into a debate about “when does life really begin,” and all that nonsense. But that’s beside the point. Truthfully, these two evils are both pretty serious considering their attendant ramifications, but I won’t get into a long essay about the absolute necessity of agency.

So, to stick with the issue at hand, we have to weigh the two evils according to the facts that we have.

• Fact 1: no matter how you slice it, abortion is effectively murder. Whether you call it murder or “termination” or whatever, the end result is the same: one less human on Planet Earth.
• Fact 2: literally hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed each year in the U.S., the vast majority of which are NOT IDX. Statistically, very (and I mean very) few of these abortions result in long-term or permanent health complications for the woman.
• Fact 3: the medical statistics do not bear out this purported (and irrational) fear of an increase in health risks for women. If there is to be an increase, it would not be considered significant and certainly does not rise to the level of epidemic as some liberals seem to be suggesting.
• Fact 4: the use of IDX as a convenient method for terminating unwanted pregnancies in late term has been on the rise in recent years, medical considerations aside.

Given these facts, the comparison seems pretty easy: it is far less an evil to allow this ban as a blanket measure for protecting the lives of citizens (even the unborn ones) and to deal with any resulting health issues for women on a case by case basis than it is to continue to allow IDX to be mainstreamed. If IDX is off the table as a convenient alternative for mothers in the second and third trimester, perhaps they will consider committing to motherhood, adoption or some other means of dealing with their pregnancy rather than simply falling back on IDX because it’s “safe and easy.”

Of course there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. Those exceptions should be considered on a case by case basis, each according to its own merits, so to speak.

It seems obvious: there is far less bad that comes of this ban than there is good.

Now, you liberals who disagree, dispute me.