• 17Nov 09

  My views on abortion

  

  Since I remember hearing about abortion, I've been mostly pro-life. At first, I was willing to allow abortions if the woman was raped, but about three years ago, I fell into the slippery slope fallacy. If abortion should be legal for raped women, why should it not be legal for all women? There's plenty of justifiable reasons for abortion other than rape, I thought, such as if the woman was poor or underaged. The government can't possibly know the situations that these women were in, and they shouldn't because they don't have the responsibility to dictate what we can or can't do, within reason, so abortion should be allowed, across the board. Of course, "within reason" had a different meaning then. If anything, I didn't take that slippery slope far enough. If abortion is justified every time, then why can't killing born humans be also justified? Of course, I didn't take that slippery slope.

  Whether I wanted to admit it or not, I still viewed a fetus as a living being. Just not one with the right to life. The rationale behind this was because I couldn't possibly imagine myself wanting to have an abortion if I were an impregnated woman, regardless of what my situation was. So, I was personally opposed to abortion, but legally not. As you can tell, this is when I adhered to moral subjectivism.

  Well, I eventually became an atheist and a moral nihilist and thought my opinion on the issue was just as strengthened until I was debating with Theokhoth and mindstorm on abortion and I had to admit that they were making good points. If the fetus is a living being, shouldn't it also have the right to life? Well, if we criminalize abortion,I thought, that wouldn't stop all abortions from occurring.However, I didn't realize that I could make the same argument with murder. Murder being illegal has not stopped all murders. The theory of making murder illegal is to prevent people from doing it. Even if it doesn't prevent people from committing murder, that's no reason not to criminalize it. Besides, it would take those that have committed murder away from those that haven't, ideally, which would create a much safer society. Theokhoth and mindstorm thoroughly smashed my argument. I came to the conclusion that I had to protect everyone's right to life, born and unborn.

  I still was a moral nihilist for sometime afterwards which resorted me in using the legality of the right to life as an argument against abortion. Contrary to popular belief, abolishing abortion would not force someone's morals on everyone. Morality and legality are different things. You canbe a moral nihilist and believe in the law. On what basis, I don't know.

  Still, I realized that it would be hypocritical of me to even personally oppose abortion if not universally oppose abortion if I didn't subscribe to some objective moral system, and to this day I veer between moral absolutism and moral universalism, which is a different subject entirely, but since making the transition from nihilism to objectivism, from pro-choice to pro-life, a lot of my opinions on issues have also changed. I've thought this before and I'll think this before: pro-life is a way of thinking.

  However, it got complicated. Since I was a death penalty opponent at the time, I resorted to life in prison as a response to murder, mainly because I felt that too many innocent people had been condemned to the death penalty. If I believed that murder deserves a certain penalty, I have to believe that abortion deserves just as much as a harsh sentence. This also made it justifiable for me to be against anti-abortion violence. However, I was also a just war supporter and if war can be justified because a country has denied its citizens unalienable rights, can't the same war take place with abortionists?

  Eventually, I realized that abortion has to be one of the easiest crimes to prove if we remove the privacy of the pregnant woman. If we can prove empirically that a woman had an abortion, that woman therefore deserves the death penalty. That thus changed my opinion on the death penalty.

  I realized though that now as a proponent for the death penalty in addition to just war, I shared views reminiscent of violent anti-abortionists. This was horrible, I thought, but I resigned myself to my radical views.I have suppressed this view for many months. Incidentally, a family member of mine told me in private that he had funded an abortion, which caused more heartache. Even though there was a part of me that wanted to kill him, I didn't want to go to jail. I have also not shared this view on GameSpot mainly because of the fear that I would be moderated for advocating such a radical view. It was true though. I was a radical in theory. I half wanted to bomb abortion clinics when I got older.

  I no longer hold that view. The reason is mainly because people aren'tknowledgeableabout the issue. For starters, many people are under the impression that a fetus is not alive. That is contrary to the evidence and common sense really. A sperm and an egg are living objects. Conception creates a new, separate being that's also living. Of course, abortion advocates remark that it's just a mass of cells and there's just as much life as there is at the tip of a nose. The difference is though that the fetus is a separate "mass of cells" that didn't exist before. Also, if the abortion advocates went any further, they would deduce that adults are also just a mass of cells, just much larger. Life is not measured in size though, thankfully.

  The sickest part is that people who believe in evolution are more likely to support elective abortion. However, those people are hypocritical. Evolution's answer to the question: "What came first: the chicken or the egg?" is the egg, which drastically different than the creationists' view of the chicken. Yet, many people who believe in evolution deny this biological fact because they rather look at the size of the fetus then its status.

  A human being is a human being at conception, but so many people are unaware of that fact. It is because of this mistake, that I realize that many abortion advocates don't realize what they're supporting. To them, it's no different than killing an animal. As a result, I no longer advocate anti-abortion violence or the death penalty for those who commit an abortion or have one, so as long as they aren't aware of the fetus's right to life.

  • Posted Nov 17, 2009 3:33 pm PT
  • Category: Opinion
  • 10 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 15Nov 09

  Why Sarah Palin's right for America

  

  The more people hate Sarah Palin, the more I realize that I love her. I did not like how she resigned from the governorship of Alaska though. I thought that was too premature. I will though support her over Obama any day of the week.

  With her new book Going Rogue already out, I'm going to conclude to you why she's right for America.

  Why she's right on abortion:
  In the Declaration of Independence, it says that all men are created equal. It doesn't say they were born equal. Roe v. Wade is a rejection of the foremost unalienable right.
  
  Why she's right on same sex marriage:
  Marriage is an institution promoting a biological family. Homosexual couples do not need marriage to tell each other how much they love each other. However, same-sex marriage advocates think that they can redefine the family structure to fit in with their homosexual agenda.

  Why she's right on the separation of church and state:
  I think if you can prove something secularly, you will win the argument. Invoking God is an argument from authority and although it is surprisingly effective, logically it is not. I do think that government officials should not be prohibited from having religion influence them, because like it or not, religion and even the lack thereof can affect our thinking, so it's important to know how exactly someone like Sarah Palin thinks.

  Note: I need to be clear on one thing. While the U.S. government has every right to put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, that doesn't make them right in their thinking that there is a God. You may be wonder, "Why is Genetic_Code arguing against the separation of church and state when he's a staunch materialist?" Well, I'm also a moral absolutist, and I would hate to see the government pander to moral subjectivists, moral relativists, and moral nihilists, because they're simply wrong and no progress could ever be done coherently through those ethical beliefs. In this way, I can understand how those in charge of the government would refuse to bow down to the postmodern notion that we must pander to everyone who disagrees with us. We must only pander to reason.

  Why she's right on guns:
  Government can only enforce the use of guns, not the possession of guns. Guns don't kill people anymore than pencils make spelling mistakes.
  
  Why she's preventing terrorism by any means possible:
  I assume this comes from someone who believes torturing an immoral terrorist to be wrong. I don't have to debate it, because the argument is self-defeating. If doing wrong to something that's wrong in order to correct the error is wrong, then the one making the judgment call is truthfully the one being wrong.
  
  Why she's right on abstinence only sex education:
  High schoolers aren't the age of consent. Therefore, they shouldn't be taught something they're not fully aware of the consequences of what they're doing.
  
  Why she's right on the death penalty:
  A murderer deserves to be killed. What more needs to be said?
  
  Why she's right on sending more troops:
  We started too large of a war in Iraq to leave it as we have done under the Obama administration, regardless if you agree with the premise the war was started on.

  • Posted Nov 15, 2009 9:15 pm PT
  • Category: Opinion
  • 34 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 14Oct 09

  Bridge to Hawaii

  A man was riding his Harley along a California beach when suddenly the sky cleared above his head and, in a booming voice, the Lord said,"Because you have tried to be faithful to me in all ways, I will grant you one wish."
  
  The biker pulled over and said, "Build a bridge to Hawaii so I can ride over anytime I want."

  
  
  The Lord said, "Your request is materialistic. Think of the enormous challenges for that kind of undertaking; the supports required reaching the bottom of the Pacific and the concrete and steel it would take! It will nearly exhaust several natural resources. I can do it,but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things. Take a little more time and think of something that could possibly help mankind."
  
  The biker thought about it for a long time. Finally, he said, "Lord, I wish that I and all men could understand women; I want to know how she feels inside, what she's thinking when she gives me the silenttreatment, why she cries, what she means when she says nothing's wrong, why she snaps and complains when I try to help, and how I can make a woman truly happy."
  
  The Lord replied,"You want two lanes or four lanes on that bridge?"

  • Posted Oct 14, 2009 9:06 pm PT
  • Category: Humor
  • 8 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »