Abortion and the Right to Bear Arms
There is no greater wrong than bringing an unwanted child into the world and there is nothing more terrible than killing a baby. From these premises, the problems with anti-abortion and pro-choice positions are complicated. Life begins at conception, so abortion is murder in some technical sense no matter what. If the line of life, from A to Z, – A, being at conception when sperm and egg germinate – then at what letter along the line of the alphabet is a fetus a human being? If you take out a tiny little premature baby (let’s say by cesarean section), who could never survive without modern medical scientific intervention, you can tickle him and he will laugh, you can give him the nipple and he will suckle and you can hold him and he will give you love.
The Philosophic Contention that Human Conceived Growth
Is Parasitical Protoplasm Is Now Ridiculous
The problem with the abortion issue, in a sense, is now that science more than religion makes the choice to willingly terminate a pregnancy impossibly hard. Medical technique now allows us, or will soon allow us, to take any sperm and egg at any point after conception – and theoretically also any fetus out of any womb no matter how early – and bring it to term. (A growing embryo is considered human with the heartbeats initiating as early as the 21st day of conception).
Abortion Is In Direct Defiance of this Commonly
Accepted Idea of the Sanctity of Life
It also is in direct opposition to a woman having the final say over her own body. It transfers power from the individual to the state. Having said that, the point along the alphabet line is still, A, so we can at least say this: abortion should not be used as a casual form of contraception. Prochoicers must take the view that, ideally, unwanted pregnancy must be prevented through the responsible use of contraception. Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women; half of them are below 25 years old. Around 60 percent of abortions are performed on single women. Many also have insufficient sexual experience to be versed in the tricks of the trade to prevent pregnancies; many come from some religious – and thus irrational – positions of sexual knowledge. For instance, during the intimacies of the act, many women cannot even look down, or touch their partners genitals, etcetera, to be sure that he has a condom on. They’ve often been blinded by their upbringing and are unprepared to do the unromantic things before sexual intercourse, like getting I U Ds, going on the pill, insisting their lover wear a condom while they are making out, have the morning after pill handy, and the many, many other devices which are available to the female consumer in our less than free society. Many cannot even say the word, “penis”, certainly a part of human anatomy which cannot be seen relaxed or stimulated without it being in the "porn-world". The religions they belong to have hidden the facts from them; they call sexual ignorance, innocence, and a state of grace, this because as in all things sexual, religions are, especially, irrational. In this way, religions are, indirectly, the cause of many desperate situations, where young women feel that they have to be unmerciful to the unborn by having an abortion. They would not have been in this position if their religious leaders would only join the 21st Century and stop preaching the creepy ideas of abstinence, of not teaching about sex production & protection, and of spreading the myth that ignorance of facts in regards to sex gives you virtue; it is not grace, it's stupidity.
We Should Never Opt for Abortion
As Last Minute Contraception.
I must say though, that my wife and I (as atheists), have already agreed that if an accident should happen, and she became pregnant again, that we would opt for abortion. Having been a father twice over, the beauty of the event hasn’t been lost on me especially as our children have been beyond wonderful; but also, an abortion wouldn’t feel much like murder like religionists say, at least not anymore than putting on a condom would. I will tell you why. We could have produced 9 children like my father did, or even 10 or 11. After all, my wife was 19 when I met her and if we had looked at it in its true religious idiocy, we could have and should have been producing a baby every year until we were spent or broke. How blessed is that? To be dumb and fertile, ah, what a life. If you’re a pure enough religious zealot, preventing the sperm from reaching the fertile egg, is in a way, a form of attempted murder. My wife and I never want to be in that position, but I must say, an unwanted pregnancy, trumps my feeling against abortion. I feel pro-life on this issue, but my deep abiding distrust of religionists and religions prompts me to comment that their ideological fight against abortion is never about the benefit of the individual or society, but only the wishful thinking for the perfect world or afterworld that their ideology engenders, not, I must say, unlike the Left, Islamists, and Marxists or which ever other group. For why Islam, Christianity and Marxism are both religions and political ideologies, see The CIA and many of my other articles such as Reason and Religion.
Any rational person can see that abortion is not really murder anymore than a miscarriage is homicidal negligence. Strange thing is, we are all guilty of this type of murder when we don’t bring a potential human life to fruition for one reason or another. Only in these other cases, the religionists can’t commandeer the state to force us to bring the baby to term. So the only question is when can the state interfere with the process, and really, should not the Christian-Judaic-Islamic governments around the world be mass-producing babies in labs, since we now have the science to do it? For all of these potential babies have, afterall, (to use their absurd argument), human potential in the religionists' Brave New Worlds.
When Does a Baby in the Womb Get Legal Status?
There is the life of the baby and the life of the mother who with political autonomy has biological freedom, (this is another reason why religion is yet a continuous threat to liberty), and ultimately, the life of the baby depends on the mom. (The state and science in the New Ancien Régime could radically change this). Best to allow the mother to choose for herself and keep the state and church out of it altogether. Not that Conservatives care about this issue (that is, female political autonomy); and yet another reason not to become one, say anymore then, becoming a Woke Liberal. We see this male Conservative apathy for female political rights especially with governments like those influenced by right-wing cultural revolutionaries such as what has happened in the USA with the draconian Evangelistic cults, nevermind the Trump buffoon. "
In the 1980s the Romanian [Communist] dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu banned contraceptives and abortions and required women to bear at least five children. Soon institutions filled with thousands of infants and kids abandoned by impoverished families . . . Kids were warehoused in overwhelmed institutions, resulting in severe neglect and deprivation. The story broke after Ceauşescu’s 1989 overthrow." Behave
. That's a living example on a large scale, if we needed one, of what happens when unwanted children are brought into the world, and in what way, in this regard, are Conservatives so different from Communists?
Lastly, the state’s attempt to restrict abortions would result not only in civil disobedience but also the percentage of illegal and unsafe abortions. Just like it greatly increases the cost of illegal drugs by the state’s prohibition, so too it would greatly increase the expenses of the procedure. The result would be much human suffering, which of course, is never much of a concern for religionists or the New Ancien Régime, but should be for all rational materialists no matter what their politics.
The issue is this: capital punishment in theory is fine, in practice it can’t be morally justified. The single salient reason is that human beings are not infallible, and in the emotive aftermath of murder, we often arrest the nearest, convenient target or even a scapegoat. As far as abortion and murder goes: if my sperm and my wife’s egg come together in the form of an unborn baby but we decide to abort it for any reason whatsoever; in theory, the anti-abortionists say we should be allowed no such liberty of choice but in fact are murderers to the same degree as any adult criminal first-degree murderer and deserve capital punishment. I say to this: we are not cockroaches and we cannot endlessly breed. Religionists have no right to inveigh their religious beliefs in these matters into the public square. People are potentially beautiful, I’ll agree. Perhaps human beings shouldn’t have the protection of any civil rights until some stated length of time, measured in months, after inception. This would solve what to do about the sperm and the egg almost instantly being considered a fully fledged human being because it can now, through modern science -- not mysticism and ignorance -- be brought to term. The irony that most of the scientists who have brought this about are atheists shouldn't be lost here!
As regards to the Second Ammendment, some right-wing pro-capitalist libertarians, especially stateside, defend and participate in the fight to remove all state regulation in regards to gun-ownership. I want to say, just as babies are beautiful, guns are fun, and their individual possession was maybe even necessary up to the end of the Second World War. I had an awesome British-made 303 semi-automatic Mohawk when I was an adolescent and would take it out on field trips in the Huronia Crown Forests and have a great time, either alone or with friends.
Here’s My Main Position: It’s Sort of an Industrialized Urban One.
I don’t want to have an assault rifle in my home or anyone else for fear that that my slightly mismanaged and relatively unhappy neighbor loses his job on the same day that his long-suffering partner throws him out, because “She’s had it up to here!” and then I have to live in fear of having to defend my family against him and his assault rifle. He might take out his gun collection and start shooting up the neighborhood, including, his kids and mine and anyone who ever ticked him off or even strangers. There’s a whole whack of slightly less than rational men in our society, who can be sent over the edge for a modicum of reasons, (divorce, sudden unemployment, grief, or even racial intolerance, leap to mind), and will turn their anger outward on the world with what weapons they have at hand. So better knifes and gasoline than a thing that can unload bullets at alarming, even unbelievable speed.
Do these slightly irrational emotionally-driven men outnumber the well-managed staid and rational men? Definitively not! We could easily take then in an all-out fight; but as a society of law and order, of liberty and justice, we just don’t know who will snap and when. We don’t lock up the “potentially” dangerous (even if there was some sort of valid test). But in time many men will snap; almost always men. No stats are necessary for this thesis, although if you followed the last link they sure are startling. So, when they do snap, I don’t want them armed with guns. To facilitate this unfortunate necessity, I am willing to have the Second Amendment like-laws repealed, to forgo the right to bare arms. The benefit to safety and security outweigh the dangers from the state. I feel my freedom and human rights are far more threatened by the men going over the edge on any given day than that this crazy and cuddly welfare democratic soft spongy gulag will ever have to be challenged with a guerilla-warfare although if it came to that, I’d certainly want a gun then. But given the immense incompetence of the state, do you think for a second that it will be that hard to mount a defence against an autocracy if it comes to that?
One other matter is relevant, gun violence and crime with guns: they make it easier for people to kill one another. Nonetheless, if I lived in a lawless place, I would want to be arm to the hilt and I don’t care what any study or liberal group said about gun-control. If you read More Guns, Less Crime, you’ll see at once that neither side of this debate has the silver bullet. If I lived under threat of constant violent crime, (like many places in the U.S.) I sure would want to be armed. However, the reason that I don’t want my (possibly crazy) neighbour who might become unhinged any day to have a host of rapid firing guns to vent his rage, is rather self-evident, and if he did 'fall-down', shouldn't I then have a gun to defend myself? Am I 100% sure that this position is correct? No not at all. The gun-touting libertarians on the other side of this argument might very well be right. That more guns produce less crime seems counterintuitive. One must defend their family, kin, friends, community, etc., from the irrational hord, but the safest method might well be by having national gun-control. What ever the case, many a nation fare far better on this issue that America.
Which brings us to the last, and depressing point: can the state really clean up millions of guns out there in our societies and are all those studies on gun control and crime rates really well vetted? Well, while the muddling state is handicapped that way, the police and security agencies aren’t nearly as bad. I believe it would put a significant dent in the number of guns. Many metropolitan police forces are already highly motivated to do so. The danger guns represent to them specifically and the innocent public in general would be mitigated some what, and after all, almost all violent criminal fatalities are generated with guns. Remember, law kind of works with an yes/no switch for us. “Yes, today I’m good, I’m good, I’m good,” etcetera for the most part of our lives, and then suddenly, “No, not today, no way!” But on that day, preceded by so many good days, you’ve been thwarted by all the yeses through all those years. You handed over your guns as was required by the new laws way back when, and on the day you fall down, you only have much less deadly weapons.
Finally, I'm no expert on the law, but if it’s viable, when people with mental disorders, who have a “known past of violent altercations" (i.e., sentences passed through to psychiatry for adjudication), and are treated and released, then want to walk among us with complete liberty, there should be some mechanism in place to check that they stay on their prescribed “meds” so that we can all live together in safety. One last thing, if all the talking heads really wanted to reduce crime, they'd stop the absolutely ridiculous War on Drugs.