Over the weekend, some central Florida pro-life activists got to hear John Ensor and Jay Grimstead speak about the underlying philosophy of abortion and why the church has been straight-jacketed into accepting fallacies that make it impossible for us to resist what is otherwise a completely irrational argument in favor of legalized abortion. Many Americans have bought the lie and others who are still pro-life in their hearts have mentally accommodated the philosophical presuppositions of this lie.
A good example of this irrationality has been dialogues on this blog, my discussion boards (and now my YouTube V-Log) with atheists, skeptics, pro-abortionists and neo-pagans. I’ve written recently about the stupidity of the Jesus-myth theorists. Here I want to deal briefly with the irrationality of the pro-abortionists.
We began in December to edit together a series of 911 calls, ambulance footage, testimonies of women damaged by abortion, pregnancy counselors who have witnessed the damage, and a story about Baby Rowan who was born alive and then left to die in an abortion clinic.
The typical response from the pro-abortionists is to simply say that we are biased religious kooks who are telling lies to advance our own agenda. The following is one such exchange:
Yeah, just continue to blather on about the horrors of medical procedures you don’t even understand while blocking any comments you can’t seem to come up with a retort to. Intelligence at its best!
It’s the web site of an abortion clinic.
Scroll down to where it says “complications of abortion.” They list all the “horrors” that we talk about in the video as genuine medical risks of abortion. The statistics and medical risks of abortion are so well-documented that even some “honest” abortion doctors tell their patients the facts.
If you don’t believe me, go to this page and read the page on the risks of an abortion from the doctor who runs an abortion clinic.
Read it and tell me who is blathering now. I am sorry if I offend you, but your comments are really ignorant. You argue from emotional bias, not rational thought.
You’re the one using religion as a basis for some sort of argument. I’d say that’s pretty irrational.
Jay Rogers wrote:
Christianity is rational. What is irrational is the modern reliance on a Kantian, Hegelian dualistic view of the universe that excludes what we cannot measure scientifically as “irrational.” Jesus Christ the Living Word (or the LOGOS) is the unifying principle of all human knowledge and is the basis for all rational thought.
Explain to me how a giant man in the sky is a rational thing to believe, and how disregarding scientific research is as well.
Jay Rogers wrote:
Christianity does not deny scientific and rational thought. All philosophy up until the time of Immanuel Kant was rational in nature. Western philosophy was divided into two groups — Christian and Greek pagan. But both groups were looking for a “unifying principle” that would unite the study of both the seen material and the unseen spiritual worlds. To Christians, this unifying principle was Christ, since the LOGOS was both a linguistic (Biblical literature) and logical (the God-man Jesus Christ as a real historical teacher) answer to the problem of the natural/spiritual dichotomy.
When Immanuel Kant wrote Critique of Pure Reason, he rejected the idea that there can be a principle that unites all fields of knowledge. He was actually arguing for an “irrational” system that tells us that we must forever accept a total dichotomy between the visible and invisible worlds. Modern philosophy and liberal theology now sees the two worlds (the noumenal world and the phenomenal world) as two airtight compartments. If the spiritual world exists, we cannot know anything about it through rational thought according to Kant.
Georg Hegel came along soon after and proposed that all truth is a synthesis between thesis and antithesis. That is, there are no objective truths, just what we end up agreeing upon after argument and debate. In fact, we make up new truths in the process. Thus Kant and Hegel together ended up creating an irrational basis for human philosophy that can never explain how the universe fits together as a whole.
Even in the world of science, history, education, literature, and politics, people now see a divided universe that exists in many small compartments, but cannot be understood as a whole. People seek to understand the “many” while denying the “one.”
Hitler was simply echoing Hegelian thought when he said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” and “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think” and “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”
In other words, the “lie” becomes the new “truth” if most people will just believe it. This is exactly what Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood and the abortion advocates have understood all too well.
What Kant and Hegel did was to open the door to irrational thought in the form of existentialism and postmodernism. In fact, we are already well down the slippery slope to irrational philosophy. Or as Lewis Carroll wrote:
“The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well.”
You post is an example of this. You start off by saying that our statistics on abortion are “blather on medical procedures you don’t even understand.”
When I cite rational, scientific and empirical evidence that come from abortion providers’ own literature, what you do is retreat into an emotional screed against religion as being irrational, yet I didn’t even use religion to try to prove that abortion is damaging to women. I know it is damaging because I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes (and video camera). I’ve researched the data, the empirical evidence and testimonies of women damaged by abortion.
You then repeat the lie that we deny scientific research, as if this research is on your side of the argument that abortion is “safe,” while even many abortionists admit that it is not.
Even from a purely non-religious viewpoint, abortion does not empower women, but damages them and is and makes them prey to unscrupulous men who murder and maim for profit.
You’ve gone so far down the rabbit hole of existentialism, that you don’t even understand the irrationality of your Kantian and Hegelian thought. In the long run, your position isn’t a philosophical or religious problem at all. It’s a moral one fueled by your own irrational passions.
And moral problems are best dealt with by the LOGOS.