In case you didn't know, I'm now writing for the Examiner as the Dade County Education Policy Examiner. Here's a link to my home page:
http://www.examiner.com/x-12824-Dade-County-Education-Policy-Examiner
I've got 5 articles posted now and will be continuing to post there. I will try to put some more current posts on this blog sometime soon as well...maybe this weekend?! I've been slacking off sorely. But I'm sure no one is missing me...!
Check out my articles and leave a comment...
13 June 2009
02 June 2009
Should the "pro-life" movement change its name?
Anyone who doubts the extremist, terrorist nature of the anti-abortion movement should take a look at this website: http://www.armyofgod.com/
That's the extreme. But the mainstream? Just check out what Bill O'Reilly has to say about it:
So yeah. That's the take you get on it from Fox. After attacking Tiller since 2005, labeling him unrelentingly "Tiller the Baby Killer" and calling him a "mass murderer" with the "blood of thousands" on his hands, Tiller is finally killed, and O'Reilly "condemns" the murder while admitting that the victim was acting within the law, nonetheless sticking by his earlier comments.
Abortion is not one of my favorite topics. But when a doctor is murdered for doing something that is permitted by law, and some groups not only refuse to condemn it but actually defend it or even hail the perpetrator as an "American hero," it deserves discussion.
First off, let's take a look at the name the movement gives itself. "Pro-life." Need I say more? Is the hypocrisy not evident? You are in favor of life and of all having an equal right to live...yet all life is not valued. Just as anti-abortion activists are more often than not pro-death penalty, pro-preemptive war, etc., some of them (though fortunately not most) also operate on the rationale that, since they see doctors who perform abortions as murderers, and apparently believe that murderers deserve the death penalty, then it is on them to execute those murderers if the law will not do it. Vigilante justice. In this country, there is a right to free speech, just as there is a right to free thought; we are all entitled to our own opinion. But when the law is not in your favor, you are not justified in killing another human being, no matter what opinion you have of him/her. How can anyone seriously call himself "pro-life" when he believes that there is something justifiable in killing a living human being, for any reason whatsoever, much less for doing something that is permissible by law?
I think these Bible-beaters have overlooked the fact that "an eye for an eye" is in the Old Testament, and that Jesus tells them in the New Testament--their own holy book--that they should turn the other cheek. In other words, Jesus does not support revenge; he supports leading by example. Practicing what you preach. If you preach non-violence, you do not commit violence. If you preach that one should choose life...you should let live.
I can't help but laugh at this old article in the satirical newspaper, The Onion. It fits my sentiments to a tee. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/christ_kills_two_injures_seven_in
Ironically enough, you do not hear of anti-abortion activists murdering women going to get abortions. They do get harassed, yes, but they are not the ones targeted for endless harassment (by mainstream TV personalities as well as radicals), nor are they the ones to get shot to death. Why? If abortion is truly and literally murder, then wouldn't the woman going to get an abortion be committing murder, and therefore be a murderer? And so (following their logic) if she is indeed a murderer, and murderers deserve death, wouldn't it be their duty to kill her too?
They call the pro-choice movement the "pro-abortion" movement, as if anyone who did not believe abortion should be illegal were cackling, rubbing his/her hands together and plotting how to raise the number of abortions performed every year. I do not know anyone who "likes" abortion or thinks anyone should take it lightly. Like everyone else I know on my side of things, I think prevention is the best medicine, and that women (especially teenagers) wising up about the consequences of sex and about birth control is a much better alternative to abortion. I do not think of abortion as an acceptable method of birth control...like pretty much everyone I know.
The problem is, too many in the anti-abortion movement believe in things such as abstinence-only education, which has been proven ineffective. It has been proven that teenagers taking a vow of abstinence are just as likely as teens not having taken the vow to have premarital sex. So far, I have not met a single person in my generation or a younger generation who has not had sex before marriage. Are we all going to hell? Perhaps, if you believe in such a thing (I don't). Regardless of what you believe about the otherworldly consequences of sexual activity, the fact of the matter is, sex is an act that has the ability to create life. And "being old enough to have sex" does NOT make one "old enough to handle the consequences." Sorry. It just doesn't. Twelve- and thirteen-year-olds are more than capable of having sex. Are they more than capable of being good parents? I think few people would say they are.
So, my question: should the "pro-life" movement change its name? To, perhaps, oh I don't know...the "pro-fetus" movement? After all, the life of an unborn fetus seems to hold far more importance for many of them than the life of an already living, breathing human being. I guess they believe that, since those fetuses have not yet been born and therefore cannot yet have sinned, their "lives" are worth saving, while people already born and already having sinned are not worth saving, and are, in fact, worth killing.
I hope those "rescued" fetuses are taking note. As soon as they are born, and do something that displeases these holy followers of Jesus (I say that with all the sarcasm in the world, in case it is not clear by my caustic tone), their life too ceases to be valuable, and they too are subject to have their life taken away from them, with the implicit support of Bill O'Reilly among others.
Yes, please, let's kill all the sinners. That way, there will be a lot more room for the animals. And maybe global warming will finally get under control.
That's the extreme. But the mainstream? Just check out what Bill O'Reilly has to say about it:
So yeah. That's the take you get on it from Fox. After attacking Tiller since 2005, labeling him unrelentingly "Tiller the Baby Killer" and calling him a "mass murderer" with the "blood of thousands" on his hands, Tiller is finally killed, and O'Reilly "condemns" the murder while admitting that the victim was acting within the law, nonetheless sticking by his earlier comments.
Abortion is not one of my favorite topics. But when a doctor is murdered for doing something that is permitted by law, and some groups not only refuse to condemn it but actually defend it or even hail the perpetrator as an "American hero," it deserves discussion.
First off, let's take a look at the name the movement gives itself. "Pro-life." Need I say more? Is the hypocrisy not evident? You are in favor of life and of all having an equal right to live...yet all life is not valued. Just as anti-abortion activists are more often than not pro-death penalty, pro-preemptive war, etc., some of them (though fortunately not most) also operate on the rationale that, since they see doctors who perform abortions as murderers, and apparently believe that murderers deserve the death penalty, then it is on them to execute those murderers if the law will not do it. Vigilante justice. In this country, there is a right to free speech, just as there is a right to free thought; we are all entitled to our own opinion. But when the law is not in your favor, you are not justified in killing another human being, no matter what opinion you have of him/her. How can anyone seriously call himself "pro-life" when he believes that there is something justifiable in killing a living human being, for any reason whatsoever, much less for doing something that is permissible by law?
I think these Bible-beaters have overlooked the fact that "an eye for an eye" is in the Old Testament, and that Jesus tells them in the New Testament--their own holy book--that they should turn the other cheek. In other words, Jesus does not support revenge; he supports leading by example. Practicing what you preach. If you preach non-violence, you do not commit violence. If you preach that one should choose life...you should let live.
I can't help but laugh at this old article in the satirical newspaper, The Onion. It fits my sentiments to a tee. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/christ_kills_two_injures_seven_in
Ironically enough, you do not hear of anti-abortion activists murdering women going to get abortions. They do get harassed, yes, but they are not the ones targeted for endless harassment (by mainstream TV personalities as well as radicals), nor are they the ones to get shot to death. Why? If abortion is truly and literally murder, then wouldn't the woman going to get an abortion be committing murder, and therefore be a murderer? And so (following their logic) if she is indeed a murderer, and murderers deserve death, wouldn't it be their duty to kill her too?
They call the pro-choice movement the "pro-abortion" movement, as if anyone who did not believe abortion should be illegal were cackling, rubbing his/her hands together and plotting how to raise the number of abortions performed every year. I do not know anyone who "likes" abortion or thinks anyone should take it lightly. Like everyone else I know on my side of things, I think prevention is the best medicine, and that women (especially teenagers) wising up about the consequences of sex and about birth control is a much better alternative to abortion. I do not think of abortion as an acceptable method of birth control...like pretty much everyone I know.
The problem is, too many in the anti-abortion movement believe in things such as abstinence-only education, which has been proven ineffective. It has been proven that teenagers taking a vow of abstinence are just as likely as teens not having taken the vow to have premarital sex. So far, I have not met a single person in my generation or a younger generation who has not had sex before marriage. Are we all going to hell? Perhaps, if you believe in such a thing (I don't). Regardless of what you believe about the otherworldly consequences of sexual activity, the fact of the matter is, sex is an act that has the ability to create life. And "being old enough to have sex" does NOT make one "old enough to handle the consequences." Sorry. It just doesn't. Twelve- and thirteen-year-olds are more than capable of having sex. Are they more than capable of being good parents? I think few people would say they are.
So, my question: should the "pro-life" movement change its name? To, perhaps, oh I don't know...the "pro-fetus" movement? After all, the life of an unborn fetus seems to hold far more importance for many of them than the life of an already living, breathing human being. I guess they believe that, since those fetuses have not yet been born and therefore cannot yet have sinned, their "lives" are worth saving, while people already born and already having sinned are not worth saving, and are, in fact, worth killing.
I hope those "rescued" fetuses are taking note. As soon as they are born, and do something that displeases these holy followers of Jesus (I say that with all the sarcasm in the world, in case it is not clear by my caustic tone), their life too ceases to be valuable, and they too are subject to have their life taken away from them, with the implicit support of Bill O'Reilly among others.
Yes, please, let's kill all the sinners. That way, there will be a lot more room for the animals. And maybe global warming will finally get under control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
