Rudy is a scary man May 25, 2007

Today I came across a news article in the Washington Post talking about Rudy Giuliani’s [a 2008 republican presidential candidate] liberal stance on a “woman’s right to choose.” The author of this article seams to be very liberal and yet he makes an amazingly good point. Here is an exert from that article [read the whole article here]. The article is talking about Rudy at this point. 

 

 

 

His argument comes down to this: “I hate abortion,” which is “morally wrong.” But “people ultimately have to make that choice. If a woman chooses that, that’s her choice, not mine. That’s her morality, not mine.” 

 

 

But the question naturally arises: Why does Giuliani “hate” abortion? No one feels moral outrage about an appendectomy. Clearly he is implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken. And here the problems begin. 

 

How can the violation of a fundamental human right be viewed as a private matter? Not everything that is viewed as immoral should be illegal; there are no compelling public reasons to restrict adultery, for example, or to outlaw sodomy. But when morality demands respect for the rights of a human being, those protections become a matter of social justice, not just personal or religious preference 

. 

All I can say is RIGHT ON. I don’t believe this author is pro-life, but at least he sees the idiocy of believing that it’s ok to kill a human. If you think about it, believing that killing a human is a personal choice is way scarier than believing that an abortion kills a bunch of cells.

A comparison of evolution and abortion September 3, 2006

Somehow I had never compared those two together before. Well anyway, I was having a little random collision with my brain, and I thought I would share with you guys my findings [no I’m not talking about gooey icky brain muck, I’m talking about my thoughts.] Some of you will go, “well duh!” And some of you might find this very interesting, as did I.     Well we all know that our wonderful friends the evolutionists say that we were “evolved from monkeys.” Now, if we were evolved from monkeys when did humans become humans? What, precisely, makes a human a human? As far as I can tell, according to the theory of evolution, there is no straight forward place where humans began. I mean, sure, most scientists may say that at so and so point in the “process of evolution” monkey became man. But where exactly is that point?  Does this not sound like another modern argument we have? Ya, abortion. In the dispute over abortion pro-abortionist will argue that until the baby is out of the womb, or at a certain point in its life process, human life has not yet begun. And again, who’s to say where exactly baby becomes human? So what these controversial issues have in common is a necessity to pin point the start of human life. Does this not shock you? How can you go around saying you don’t know how or when you became what you are, but you’re certain that you came from that which you can not understand? That is if you are an evolutionist. You see a creationist believes that humans will and can, only produce humans. So the moment a baby is formed it’s a human. Is that not a whole lot simpler than the never ending question marks left by the theory of evolution?  

  Evolution has no definite aspects to it. No definite way life could have evolved. No definite reason for living. And no definite beginning to life. No matter how far back in the process of evolution you go there is always something that came nothing. There either has to be a substance that has been around literally forever. Or a substance that came from nothing. This substance sounds a bit supernatural to me. Now I ask you, is it easier to believe that we, humans, evolved from apes, which evolved from the first living cell, which evolved from… thin air. Or is it easer to believe that a loving God created us? Either way we can’t explain it. But I know that I, for one, would rather be a child of God that an ancestor of King Kong.