On Abortion

(NOTE: If you want to read the amendment before the rationale for it, just scroll down the page. Full disclosure: your humble webmaster is an unabashed "pro-lifer".)

The "pro-choice" (more accurately "pro-death") side of the debate is fond of saying "At its heart, this debate is about who has the right to make decisions about women's bodies." That is, of course, a deliberately deceptive, designed-as-political-strategy over-simplification. Society has already decided that, as a general rule, one person is not free to simply extinguish the life of another, and has called intentional killing "murder" and criminalized it legislatively with the most severe penalties. Therefore, the REAL intellectually honest question in the abortion debate is: at what point in the development of a human individual, should s/he be accorded full legal rights the same as everyone else in society? The corollary question is: why should it be illegal for a mother to kill her baby after it is born, but legal for her to kill it before it is born? From the point of view of the human species trying to reach and fulfill its highest and best spiritual and intellectual potential, surely all reasonable people of good will can agree that these questions are of crucial life-or-death importance and deserve the most honest and careful analysis possible.

Unlike "talk master" Neal Boortz1, I really love abortion AS A POLITICAL2 ISSUE for the huge problems it causes for the stupid-human pecking order (social hierarchy) best known by the deception-based euphemism, "government". (In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals of the human pecking order who have historically always liked to manipulatively refer to themselves and their dominant position as "government" so their gullible and naive non-dominant followers will view the arrangement as being somehow spiritually, intellectually and morally legitimate. The devious REAL idea and intent, of course, is for the dominant individuals ["public servants"] to gain "office" for purposes of accruing power and money to themselves under the fraudulent rubric of the Orwellian phrase "public SERVICE".) For such a huge and acrimonious political controversy, you would think abortion would be enormously complex to explain and understand. It isn't.

The main cause of the abortion "controversy", as with most problems, is the huge number of lemming-like sheeple (human sheep) who insist on believing in, following, and obeying inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring (Power Over the Other) "government". That is so because of the opposite ways in which the mechanics of God's laws and man's laws work.

God's voluntary-compliance cause-and-effect laws are love-based, free-will based, individualism-based and protect all individuals (1) equally, (2) separately, and (3) simultaneously, in other words, the so-called “Golden Rule” which has been wisely paraphrased as “don’t do to anyone else that which you wouldn’t want done to you.” Even atheists should be able to live with that concept, which some of them like to call "The Non-Aggression Principle", since the mathematics of the equation are pragmatically the same for atheist and Christian alike, regardless of the nomenclature.

In direct polar contrast, humankind's deception-based, fear-based, coercion-based and monopoly-on-violence-based laws by definition and necessity inevitably pit the "legal" rights of one individual or group against the "legal" rights of another individual or group in the following dialectic perfectly exemplified by the abortion "issue":  the child's right to life (thesis) versus the mother's right to privacy (antithesis). Under this paradigm, after spending huge amounts of money on lawyers for going into their courts, fraudulently called "the people's courts", a phony illusion (e.g. Roe v. Wade) of genuine resolution and harmony is arrived at (synthesis). This subtle and complex scam is known as the Hegelian dialectic, a means by which clever individuals create and manage social crises for the purpose of gaining power and money to benefit themselves.

I believe the abortion "controversy" is caused and fueled by a tiny percent of ignorant dead-ender control-freak zealots on both ends of the political spectrum. Both dead-ender "sides", albeit for different reasons, want to use the violence-based, coercion-based police powers of the State to impose their beliefs and will upon all the rest of society. I also believe a huge percentage of people, probably over 90%, would agree with my analysis and proposed political solution. Let's examine the situation logically instead of emotionally.

Let's begin the analysis with the logical proposition: if 1) a = c, and 2) b = c, then 3) a = b. In other words, since "world view" means how you  believe the universe around us actually functions, we can rephrase the proposition thusly: if 1) "atheism" = world view, and 2) "religion" = world view, then 3) atheism = religion. This equation demonstrates the illogic, and manipulation, even fundamental stupidity, behind the intellectually fraudulent so-called "separation of church and state" controversy. It's a political manipulation, pure and simple, believed only by the gullible and naive, and promoted only by intellectually dishonest manipulators of public opinion (aka "propagandists"). Secular politicians and ecclesiastical politicians are chosen by substantively the same human process. It is an easily provable historical fact that Thomas Jefferson , a deist as many of the Founders were, did not remotely mean by his phrase what modern day social manipulators and sophists pretend he meant.

Before getting to my proposed resolution of the abortion issue as a political problem, I think it's a useful idea to set forth my individualism-based so-called "secular"3 definition of the word "God". The Bible calls God the great I AM (Ex 3:14). French philosopher Rene Descartes is credited with first saying the famous words “Cogito Ergo Sum”  or “I think, therefore I am.” So, for the sake of the argument, let’s say God is the Great I AM (great existence), and the individual human is the little I AM (small existence). The Bible also tells us we were created in God's image (Ge 1:27) as self-owning, self-determining free-will individuals, accountable to God's individualism-based moral rules governing human behavior. From that point, it is reasonable to extrapolate a workable individualism-based atheistic definition of a self-owning, self-determining, all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent Creator (God) of the self-owning, self-determing individual to be all that is good, truthful, loving, kind, generous, merciful, ingenious, industrious, courageous, and noble about mankind collectively as a species. In other words, "God" = the (Great I AM Spirit of) collective human desire for existence (life), significance (to be loved), self-ownership/self-determination (freedom), self-realization/fulfillment (purpose), and contentment (happiness and prosperity). The parenthesized "Great I AM Spirit of" phrase is for is for the benefit of ignorant Taghut (Islamic word meaning “against the Divine will”) “statist theists" (a de facto oxymoron and deception-based political fraud, as is "anarchist atheists").

Returning to the subject of abortion, clearly a human life begins at conception, in other words when a male sperm joins up with a female ovum to make a zygote. One of the pro-choicers' biggest weaknesses is that they are generally so politically manipulative they can't even bring themselves to admit that simple scientific FACT. Also crystal clear is that to deliberately end a human life constitutes a per se violation of the Golden Rule4. In fact, the deliberate extinction of a post-birth life is called "murder" by human law, and has the most severe penalties attached to its perpetration. Of course there are separate and different deceptive collectivism-based words for when "government" deliberately extinguishes a post birth life, such as "execution", "war casualty", "collateral damage", etc.

The political controversy of abortion deals with pre-birth human lives. So — the real, the legitimate, the intellectually honest question arising from abortion is: at what precise point in its development is the pre-birth human life entitled to the same LEGAL protections (aka "equal protection of law") as post-birth human lives?

"Pro-choice" (actually pro-death) dead-ender zealots hold that pre-birth human lives are not entitled to any legal protection, and their lives exist exclusively at the sufferance of their mothers up to the point of birth. In fact, some have even advocated post-birth infanticide. "Pro-life" dead-ender zealots hold that the pre-birth human life is entitled to the same legal protection as post-birth lives from the point of conception and the formation of a zygote forward. As I said, and it deserves repetition, the abortion problem is caused by the fact that both of the dead-ender elements on the opposite ends of the issue insist on competing for the political power with which to utilize the coercion-based police power of the state to forcibly impose its views on everyone else, including their political opponents.

It is my political assessment that a HUGE majority of people, probably at least 90-95%, fall somewhere in between the two extremes. So it is logical, since we are dealing with inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring kingship-of-man human politics, to presume that it's possible to craft an abortion policy which would provide common ground where the overwhelming majority could reach agreement and resolve the controversy insofar as it involves human law.

Following is my proposed abortion platform and its accompanying explanations. I believe that if money were not being made off the abortion issue, whichever political party would adopt the following platform would win elections.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ON ABORTION:

1) A human life begins at conception.

2) Because pre-birth babies are incapable of crime which would trigger the Natural law of self-defense, the deliberate extinguishing of a pre-birth human life constitutes a self-evident per se violation of the Golden Rule, and is therefore by definition immoral in virtually all cases where the life of the mother is not in grave danger.

3) It is generally recognized by an overwhelming majority of the people that it is, from purely factual and medical points of view, a significantly greater and less justifiable tragedy to abort a pre-birth baby in the ninth month of development than it is to abort a pre-birth baby in the fourth week of development.

4) Because nobody in his right mind favors an inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring Big-Brother government so big, control-freakish, and intrusive that it is authorized to hassle pregnant women in the first trimester of their baby's development before they are even "showing", all first trimester abortions shall be deemed a matter falling inside the boundaries of the mother's right to privacy. This policy shall be limited exclusively to first trimester pregnancies, except in the event that a State, in its wisdom and discretion, shall see fit to not criminalize second trimester abortions.

5) With modern medical technology, third trimester babies are generally viable outside the mother, therefore third trimester pre-birth babies shall have all of the protections of law accorded to post-birth humans. All third trimester abortions shall be illegal except to save the life of the mother.

6) Until such time as medical technology advances to the point where more scientifically factual information is available (e.g. second trimester babies become generally viable outside the mother), the individual states, under the regular law-making procedures, shall have the power to criminalize second trimester abortions in accordance with their wisdom and discretion.

7) In all cases of rape, incest, or the mental and physical health of the mother, the decision to abort the baby must be made during the first trimester of development. "Slippery slopes" of any kind will not be allowed to extend the degree of fetal development encompassed either by this policy, or by the various policies of the various States, whichever is most directly applicable.

8) In all cases of forcible rape or incest, the aborted baby shall be accorded all the legal rights of a post-birth human being, and the baby's death shall be deemed to be murder. Perpetrators of forcible rape or incest resulting in an abortion shall be deemed guilty of first-degree murder and upon trial and conviction shall be punished with the maximum sentence in accordance with the laws of the state where the crime was committed. The victim of such forcible rape or incest shall not be held legally liable for the death of her aborted baby in any way whatsoever.

9) In all cases of false accusations of forcible rape or incest, any person making a false accusation of same, upon trial and conviction, shall receive the same maximum punishment which the falsely accused person/s would have received upon conviction and execution of sentence.

10) In all cases of false accusations of forcible rape, incest, or false accusations of same, the accused shall be accorded all procedural due process rights, specifically including the right to face one's accuser/s.

Provision #9 regarding false accusations and false witnessing is biblical (De 19:16-19), and would dramatically unclog our courts if it were implemented. Of course, lawyers wouldn't be as busy and, consequently, would make less money. The ABA lobby would NEVER tolerate that!

And there you have it, boys and girls, ladies and germs: the logical and workable solution to the political part of the abortion problem!

_____________________________

FOOTNOTES:

1. Following is an email I sent radio talk show host, Neal Boortz, just for the fun of teasing an obviously smart person who, on the issues of abortion, gay marriage and God at least, frequently acts like a gutless pseudo-intellectual weeny hiding behind his "kill" button and the facade of a pompous ass. Let's see if he has the guts and humility to respond to it and/or post it on his website.

Hi Neal,

In accordance with your policy of "Web Guy and Cristina will forward intelligent messages to me", this email should be forwarded to you.

I laugh at you, "not with ... AT" (as you say), because I'm fairly sure that, as a lawyer, you haven't got the guts or intellectual honesty to post (word for word) an intelligent letter that makes you look less than as intelligent as you think you are.

See http://johnwilkenson.com/?q=node/932 for an example of how it IS possible to handle the abortion issue in an intelligent, philosophically comprehensive and intellectually honest way without being quite so obnoxious to certain individuals you love to hassle, and without creating the appearance of being a gutless control-freakish pseudo-intellectual weeny.

Of course I realize that being obnoxious, like the fights after school when we were kids, is more interesting and draws a bigger audience for you, which means higher ratings, which in turn means more money for you. But since I believe you're really a nice, quasi-traditional-values guy at heart and your obnoxiousness is due primarily to ignorance, I would love to see you try a more courteous genuinely educational approach with most of your "victims".

Of course it's your show and you can do with it as you please, including hiding behind the "kill" button, which is why there is no way for me to get enough time on your show to demonstrate for the whole world to see the intellectual shallowness of the way you handle abortion on your show.

Fortunately, internet technology makes it possible for the "little guys" like me to argue with the "big stars" like you. And, of course, my websites are mine to do with as I please. You will be thrilled to know that, since our last little email exchange, which there is no way you would remember, I've been taking website-building lessons (per libertarian free market philosophy), and am my own webmaster. Are you your own webmaster? If so, that might be another area of common interest.

Having teased you a little, and taken a few pokes at your considerable ego and false pride (I have the same), I will compliment you by saying your work on the FAIR TAX forgives all sins. I've also bought three of your books, and thoroughly enjoyed them.

It's just that in the areas of "God", gay "marriage" and abortion, you manifest the behavior of a pseudo-intellectual weeny, and I wanted to take you to task.

Best wishes to you and your fine staff, and good luck on mustering up the guts and humility to post this letter on your fine (I mean that) website! I posted it on mine at the above URL! :-)

Sincerely,

John Wilkenson

2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.

3.  "Secular" is another deception-based word because it's impossible to be separate from how you think the universe around you actually functions. It is impossible to be separate from your own mind! "Secular" is just another word for "world view". All the rest of the so-called "separation of church and state" doctrine is sheer political manipulation and deception.

4. You will notice that Wikipedia, as most people do, erroneously refers to the Golden Rule as an "ethic" of reciprocity. In reality, it is an empirically observable cause-and-effect Natural law governing the consequences of inter-human behavior, and is not subject to either individual or collective human opinion for its existence or the power of its gravitational forces and ramifications. Failure to recognize the fundamental reality-based differences between a human-opinion-created ethic and a Natural law totally unrelated to human opinion is an enormous error in reasoning which has profoundly negative effects on societal structures.