Thursday, March 31, 2005

Evolution, Environmentalism, Abortion, and Schiavo

Four topics that inspire a whole lot of controversy, isolated issues to many, but in my view, inseparable.
Let's work backwards:

Now I'll make an attempt (perhaps feeble) to tie all this together. If Evolutionists are correct, there truly is no reason for humans to hold themselves accountable to any higher moral code than that shared by animals. Any notion of a Creator who has dictated what is "right" and "wrong" summarily goes completely out the window. The environmentalists, then, are correct in assuming that humankind, being the biggest hindrance to Mother Earth's health, are expendable for the good of the Planet, and therefore attempts at artificially sustaining life are harmful to the Earth. Abortion establishes that "personhood" is a needed criteria for life to be considered valid, and paves the way for systemic extermination of "non-persons" who happen to pose a burden to "persons." And Terri Schiavo was the first openly public case of a post-birth "non-person" being legally eliminated to facilitate a better life for a "person." I realize that many may "poo-poo" the "slippery slope" argument that has been used against evolution, abortion, and euthanasia, but I think we're seeing how fast that slope can become a downward spiral. Things will get worse, I'm afraid, before they get better.

Remember that Nazi Germany declared Jews to be devoid of "personhood," and thereby perfect subjects to the experimentation of demented scientists and the exploits of power-mad militarians before their (relatively humane) extermination in Hitler's Final Solution. This isn't, in all honestly, more than an arm's reach away from where we stand now. If we can declare an incapacitated but otherwise healthy human being to be devoid of that magical quality we've defined as "personhood," only time and further desensitation need take place before we're willing to make that same declaration towards an entire class of citizens.

Wow. This says it all.
You don't understand the basic principles of any of the three topics you just spoke about. Environmentalists do NOT believe all creatures are equal, they feel that as the most powerful creatures we should protect the others. Evolutionists do NOT feel that we are animals because we descended from a common ancestor. They feel that evolution has made humans completely distinct and seperate from all other creatures. Finally, the idea behind abortion is that the human fetus is no more a person than a finger or a nose. It is part of a human, but it is not a person because it cannot think and it will die when seperated from the rest of the body. Please take the time to learn the facts before you go spreading ignorance. I smell a Republican.
My dear, bold, anonymous friend:

Perhaps you allude to the roots of the environmentalist and evolutionist movements. In that vein you would have a fine thread of basis for your statements about those categories. The first environmentalists were those who believed that man's standing was above God's other creations and that he was given dominion over all the world as both beneficiary and steward of all the world holds. Darwin himself wrote much more as an advocate for intelligent design rather than random evolution, and supported that the path from single-celled organisms to the obviously superior lifeform of mankind was a testament to the craftiness and might of the creator--not a proof of that creator's nonexistance. Sadly, both of those views have been cast by the wayside.

The modern forms of the environmental movement have taken a radically different slant, however. Do a search for "PETA quotes" and look at how the leaders of that group (and several others as the Sierra Club, Earth First!, etc.) feel about humans' place on earth. This is simply an extension of the evolutionist's mantra that all life on earth share a common ancestor.

As to your statement regarding the "idea behind abortion," the very thing you claim as the root of the debate is the exact point I made--that an establishment of "personhood" is the crux of the issue. Were the fetus just another part of the body, abortion wouldn't be considered. After all, how many people do you know who have elective amputations? The fact that the fetus will become a person is both the reason abortion is desired and the reason it is an unacceptable practice.

I offer you a cordial invitation to educate me on the "facts" that you are privy to, because the entire content of your post served to expose your own ignorance of the issues and their origins.

Finally, I could care less what you think you "smell." I make no bones about being a conservative. I believe that less government is better government and that belief leads me more often than not to the Republican party's position. I am, however, much more guided by logic and reason than by either party's talking points.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?