Abortion: (See Abortion Murder, The Case Against Abortion in Highlights) Women are blessed with a miraculous reproductive system. They should be encouraged to honor and respect it. It should be used responsibly. We should not encourage women to abuse it because it is their body and thereby their right. Yes, there are circumstances where they have to make very tough decisions and choices because of rape or incest. But instead of encouraging abortion right from the start, they should be counseled on other solutions first and make abortion the very last absolutely tragic answer to their problem. Tell women they have a right to abort, it’s their body, and it’s their choice. No. Many will abuse that right and start using it as a method of birth control. I’d like to think this is not true but many will abuse that right and start using it as a method of birth control. I don’t ever want abortion to become fashionable or just another procedure. It should always be regarded as the last possible option and only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.
American Atrocities (Domestic) : Also see International American Atrocities Rockefeller has Coal miners union organizers murdered. The Ludlow Massacre in 1914 by the National Guard. 11 Children, 2 Women. In 1847 Federal troops killed 30 workers, 100 woulded in the battle of the Viaduct in Chicago. In 1894 Federal troops killed 34 Pullman railroad union members. 1897, 19 coal miners killed, 36 wounded in PA.
Animal Rights: The Illogic of Animal Rights by J. Neil Schulman The so-called "animal rights" movement is relying upon a logical fallacy which is based on mutually exclusive premises. "Animal rights" premise #1: Human beings are no different from other animals, with no divine or elevated nature which makes us distinct; "Animal rights" premise #2: Human beings are ethically bound not to use other animals for their own selfish purposes. If human beings are no different from other animals, then like all other animals it is our nature to kill any other animal which serves the purposes of our survival and well-being, for that is the way of all nature. Therefore, aside from economic concerns such as making sure we don't kill so quickly that we destroy a species and deprive our descendants of prey, human animals can kill members of other animal species for their usefulness to us. It is only if we are not just another animal -- if our nature is distinctly superior to other animals -- that we become subject to ethics at all -- and then those ethics must take into account our nature as masters of the lower animals. We may seek a balance of nature; but "balance" is a concept that only a species as intelligent as humankind could even contemplate. We may choose to temper the purposes to which we put lower animals with empathy and wisdom; but by virtue of our superior nature, we decide ... and if those decisions include the consumption of animals for human utilitarian or recreational purposes, then the limits on the uses we put the lower beasts are ones we set according to our individual human consciences. "Animal rights" do not exist in either case.
Even though I personally believe we were created by God, unlike advocates of the Judeo-Christian tradition I do not rely upon the question of whether humans have a "soul" to distinguish humans from animals. Like secular rationalists, I'm content to resolve the issue of the nature of human beings, and the nature of animals, by scientific means -- observation, experiment, and the debate of paradigms. Each of these criteria is simply a proof of intelligence and self-consciousness: 1) Being observed as producing or having produced technological artifacts unique to that species; 2) Being observed as able to communicate from one generation to the next by a recorded language unique to that species; 3) Being observed as basing action on abstract reasoning;
4) Being observed as engaging in inductive and deductive...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document