“This is he (Kasdeja) who showed the children of men all the wicked smiting of spirits and demons, and the smiting of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away…” In other words, abortion. Enoch 69:12
The above passage is one of several naming the fallen angels, the so-called Watchers, who fell in league with Satan, mated with human women to produce the Nephilim, and taught women, and through them men, knowledge that was forbidden to mankind.
I had a brief debate regarding abortion with a clerk this morning. Things were going well until she asked about my Ronald Reagan t-shirt; a cartoon of Reagan riding a velociraptor, holding a grenade launcher, and Old Glory the backdrop. My eldest daughter bought for me as a sort of joke gift.
I mentioned how my younger daughter didn’t much care for it; she’s gone liberal on us. Well, it turns out the clerk was liberal. In Memphis. What were the odds? She said “liberal” is a term misappropriated to stereotype people. She is, after all, for liberty.
I said I am too. But things like abortion; not good. You can imagine she didn’t like that. Her arguments in favor and my responses in the sub-bullets:
- A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. It’s nobody else’s business.
- OK, but what about the body of the young human being in there? Doesn’t that unborn person have the same right?
- I’m a man. I couldn’t possibly understand.
- Well, that’s just dismissive; smoke and mirrors. She doesn’t have an answer to my rebuttal regarding someone’s “right to do what they want with their body.” Instead of sticking to the issue, she had to go personal, because she had nothing else. Argumentum ad hominum – argument against the man. It’s a common fallacy of logic, something you hear from someone who can’t maintain their argument with facts.
- It’s an issue between a woman and God.
- Yeah, that’s not a good position to put one’s self in when you’re on the wrong side of an argument. Against God. We are to exhort each other to good works, so not engaging her or anyone else on issues concerning God’s definition of right and wrong is…wrong.
- Furthermore, just to be clear, murder is murder whether you see the person you’re killing or not. Like an unborn human in the womb.
- It’s only murder if it’s a viable life, capable of sustaining itself outside the womb.
- Well, that pretty much puts all children at risk, even after birth. They might make it a few days before succumbing to starvation, cold, predation, etc. Ultimately, a newborn is not completely viable once born.
- Cases of premature children who survived thanks to modern medicine abound. Where does that leave her argument?
- What about old people who are no longer “viable” without intervention?
- I understand what she was trying to express, but she did so stupidly, not thinking through the ramifications of that argument. Not holding her or anyone else to thoughtful expression of their opinions allows lazy reasoning and very poor, possibly fatal and even damning repercussions. If we’d had time, she’d have been forced to recognize the fact that she’s arguing with stereotypical cliché’s. Which is kind of how this started, right? She didn’t want to be labeled with the subjective cliché’s of the term “liberal,” but then there she was offering all of the stereotypical cliché’ arguments with no real though put into them.
When all is said and done, this is God’s universe and His rules. He made all of it and us, and He knows best how it should work.
Proof? It’s in all of the stories of women who grieve a lifetime over their decision to abort a child.