Okay, it was inevitable I suppose: an abortion post.
In American culture there are two main positions that are taken up socially: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. The Pro-Life position holds the opinion that a mother should not dispose of any unborn child, for a variety of reasons. The Pro-Choice position holds the opinion that the mother of the unborn child, which is not actually a child, should be able to decide to keep or dispose of the unborn…thing. Hell, let’s call it a parasite. That’s what it is, right?
Personally, I am Pro-Choice. “WHAAAAAA?!” I know, I know, you weren’t expecting it. Allow me to elaborate. A woman who conceives a child does indeed have the option to dispose of it. However, in my personal opinion, these murderers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 🙂
Now this is a peculiar position to hold, I know, and some of you out there are shaking your fists saying things like, “You’re not really Pro-Choice!” and,”Don’t give us that name, you’re Pro-Life!” So let’s break this point down:
1. We all have free will and are capable of making any decision at any time. This does not make any choice right or wrong, merely possible.
2. Murdering a fetus is a choice.
3. Our constitution in it’s opening sentence establishes that our Nation was founded to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
1350–1400; ME posterite < L posteritās, n. deriv. of posterus coming after.
1. succeeding or future generations collectively: Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
2. all descendants of one person: His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.
The above definition comes directly from dictionary.reference.com and is based on the Random House Dictionary. This would then define a fetus, or any biological form of an unborn child as one’s “posterity”, yes? I mean we have DNA tests for these kinds of dilemmas, should there be any doubt.
So therefore, by the points above we can establish that to commit an abortion is to willingly defile the liberty of the posterity of an American (as we are discussing this in the context of American culture). If we can make this deduction, that abortion is unconstitutional, wouldn’t that make it a federal crime? Regardless of your moral standing on this issue, it’s rather clear that abortion is unconstitutional, at best.
For what it’s worth, my opinion is that abortion is a kind word for murdering children, and that it is a sin by whatever name you give it.
All of this said, I was really just leading up to an article that I read on “Hot Air”, a blog that posts lots of news articles squelched by big media agenda. I found this there, an article about a Pro-Life protester being assaulted by a male escort of Planned Parenthood. Now, the “assault” is small change, I think, though I’m sure it shook up Miss Lila Rose. You should recognize that name if you keep up with news. She’s done a lot of work exposing Planned Parenthood, which is almost definitely why she was the subject of this attack. We have her to think for this article and this footage. Now, again I’ll say, this “assault” was comprised of an approach, raised voices, and Mr. Gerald Nordley knocking a Bible and other informative literature out of Miss Rose’s hands. Not really what I would call an “assault”, but worthy of being reported, none the less. This article focuses on Planned Parenthood, that it’s bad business not to reprimand employees for things like this, and so on. They focus here because they are political proponents. I would like to focus on a much bigger deal.
This is the page of Mr. Gerald Nordley. This is the page of his church, which he lists in his “affiliations” section of his page. Mr. Nordley, it seems, is a Unitarian Universalist (as if your blood didn’t boil at the sight of his name already). Now, upon first glance at this church’s page, I was charged with a thirst for justice of a church that does not reprimand a member who works for baby killers, not even after he’s publicly recognized as assaulting a person with opposing political views.
Now, looking on my good friend and faithful companion, Wikipedia, I found that Universal Unitarianism follows seven basic principles, with six basic sources. Ironically, the first of these principles is “The inherent worth and dignity of every person.” On this church’s website, they state that they follow these principles. They don’t cite them, of course. Nor do they state them, but when they say “we uphold shared principles”, I would imagine those are the principles they are pointing towards. Indeed, there is a link to a separate website that states these seven principals, but none on the church’s main page. I’m gawking, really, over how spineless this church is.
Additionally, let’s look at how this church was founded. Again, I am not making this up, check out the website yourself.
“The idea for a Unitarian Universalist Church in Livermore started when one family wanted to adopt a baby and thought belonging to a faith would help the process. The couple started their own branch of the Unitarian Universalist Association, but left after adopting the child. Fortunately,the church remained and continued to grow.”
All of this ranting (yes, I know), is to boil down to one thing: I’m going to write these people, this church an email. It probably won’t go anywhere, the congregation will probably never hear it, but maybe, just maybe it’ll shake up someone’s world enough to smack some cold hard truth into them. Then again, these people seem highly practiced at allowing very real problems to roll off of their backs. I will post any response I receive.