Arguments Against Abortion

              Anyone who knows me personally will tell you that I am likely the last in a group to get political.  In politics, it is nearly impossible to win; to be 100% right.  That is why I prefer discussions of ideals and morals.  In such battles, it is possible to devote yourself wholly to one side or the other.  Everyone can, idealistically, achieve perfection; we are simply incapable of initiating it.  Therefore, I don't want you to think this article to be political at all.  To open yourself to this essay, put yourself in a box.  Exclude government, politics, and disrespect from your box.  Simply silence your mind and let the words on this page flow into your box.  Remember that I am not here to discuss the legality of abortion but the morality of abortion

                Well then, now that I have adequately exercised my creative writing skills, let's start discussing.  Should you go to Google and type in "baby survives abortion", you would get a wealth of results; many of which are news articles telling stories about the mothers of such children.  You could easily be on the internet for weeks reading and reading such stories.  Though the internet is not always reliable, the wealth of witnesses to this anomaly prove that babies are capable of surviving abortions.  Notice what verb we use to describe what the baby does; the baby survives.  

                Why do we use that word, survives?  According to my cross referencing of three online dictionaries, the definition of "survived" can be summed up like so: "to continue living despite".  And in order for someone to continue living through dire circumstances, they would have to have been living in the first place.  You see what our own words have proven?  I guarantee that you can find no better verb to fit this simple sentence: "The baby survived the abortion."  How could you?  We're not foolish enough to think that the abortion somehow bestowed life upon the baby.  The baby lived in spite of all that had happened to it.  It survived.  And in order to survive, the baby had to have been alive before the incident.

                Many people, I think, do not take the fact that I have proven far enough.  I am referring to those who only think the baby is "alive" when it is capable of surviving outside the whom (approximately 23 weeks).  I find, however, that this logic is rather extreme.  Consider an old person of 100+ years.  By now, they probably require the assistance of advanced, life support machines to stay alive.  Were you to take away that assistance, they would likely be dead within the hour.  Does that make them dead while on life support?  Certainly not.  While on life support, they can still talk and understand speech.  They can see, smell, touch, taste, and hear.  They can feel any and every emotion.  Clearly, they are just as alive as the rest of us.  

                Is not life support to an elder what the mother's whom is to the child?  If we only define "life" as "capable of living without a crutch", we likely denote every last person on earth as dead.  What about people who require medicine regularly?  People who need a new organ?  People who require pacemakers and people who carry around machines feeding oxygen to them?  Surely all such people are just as alive as the healthy.  It does not do to dismiss weak, dependent life as not being alive at all.  It is far more accurate merely to state that the life within them is weak, not nonexistent. 

                So, that would make abortion murder, wouldn't it?  Beyond any doubt, but some people dismiss it on account of their belief that "it's the woman's right" to abort the child.  Now, in order for such a statement to be true, the woman must have absolute ownership of the child's life.  There are two ways in which such ownership can be achieved. The first is that the owner in question created the object in question.  How does the mother of a child apply here?  Clearly, she is found wanting.  It is hardly accurate to say that a mother creates her child.  The child is created biological within her whom quite without her willing it to happen.  Indeed, sometimes it happens quite against her will.   

                The second method used to obtain ownership is payment.  People pay large sums of money for things that required large sums of money to create, and they pay small sums of money for things that required small sums of money to create.  In the mind of those who believe in the woman's right to abortion, the woman has paid for the ownership of the child by sharing her body with the child.  While that is physically demanding on the mother, how does that constitute ownership?  How does nine months of hardship even begin to pay for the child's entire lifetime?  Even further, is not the child's soul a one-of-a-kind thing that will exist forever (depending on what you believe)?  For the mother to own it, she would have to pay with eternity; not just with her life but with her very existence.  And if she did that, the child would be unable to exist.

                Man does not have complete authority of his life or the life of anyone else.  That authority remains with the Creator, (whether you think that is God, or nature, or fate, or blind chance, or science, etc.) who put in the work to create life; a gift so priceless it could never be bought by the effort of man.  The woman does not create the child, she does not know who he is or who he will be.  Her body autonomously creates the child according to the design of its Creator.  She is merely the instrument used in a process that deserves far more respect and credit than it is given.

Arguments Against Homosexuality

          Allow me first to "set up" this argument.  Throughout it, I will be referring back to whatever you believe created you.  That may be God, or nature, or fate, or blind chance, or evolution or whatever.  I am not here to impose faith, I am here to impose morals; and as such will not require you to change your belief to make sense out of this argument.  For whatever you believe, I will give the central name "Orion".  Whenever you see the word "Orion", feel free to insert the name of your creator.
          You will find that the bulk of this argument is actually a counter-argument.  Many people who have chosen the homosexual lifestyle argue that, "I was born this way!"  It is against this claim that I am countering.  I may not know much about human emotions, but here is what I do know.  When we are talking only about your physical body, the facts are that every man's body belongs to a woman's body, and a woman's body belongs to a man.  Sexual intercourse between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman is not Orion's design.  It's that simple.  By what logic, then, have we decided it is possible to be born emotionally contradictory to how Orion's design works?
          Some of you may be thinking this argument weak on account that Orion's design is a complex thing with exceptions and contradictions that are impossible to know.  Well, let me ease those doubts by classifying every abnormality in Orion's design as either an exception or a flaw.  Here is an example, picture the ostrich.  While indeed classified as a bird, it is incapable of flying unlike most every other bird.  Is this an exception or a flaw?  For some contrast, let's observe another abnormality; in this case, a genetic disease.  This provides much more perspective; obviously the disease is a flaw and the ostrich's flightlessness is an exception.  But why?  What then, is the definition of a flaw?  Here is what I have observed, the genetic disease works against the body of the one who suffers from it.  The ostrich, however, is perfectly fine without flight.  An exception is a bizarre, yet perfectly functioning difference; whereas a flaw is a difference that works against the original design.
          Some of you may despise me for concluding this, but my oath to logic requires me to dub homosexuality a spiritual flaw in Orion's design.  Homosexuality, as we have concluded, works against his design.  Were every man and woman in the world homosexual, humanity would soon be extinct.  
          Here is a final statement of my position, I do believe you can be born with a personality that easily leads to inclinations of homosexuality.  But note that, as I have just spelled out, those inclinations are a spiritual flaw; much like someone can be born with a physical disability.  You may have chosen to live the homosexual lifestyle, but I respectfully ask that you do not waste my, other people's, and most importantly, your own time by claiming you were born a homosexual and that you had no choice. 

Arguments Against Intoxication

          By "intoxication", I am referring to being drunk with any form of alcohol or being high on any sort of drug.  Please note that I have nothing against alcohol or drugs (with the exception of drugs designed only for intoxicating).  My argument is strictly against intoxication itself.  
          For those of you who have been following me, you have seen my argument against intoxication in my Battle Against Modern Ideals post, which basically argues that you shouldn't do it because it ruins your body.  But perhaps some of you may not be convinced?  Or you want to change, yet do not have the mental ammunition to shake off the addiction?  Whatever your reason, here are some more of my points against intoxication.
          Allow me to kick off the argument with a scenario.  Picture a sober man and an intoxicated man.  Both of them kill someone; the sober man while he is sober and the intoxicated man while he is intoxicated.  Both of them would be punished under the law of our nation, and with this I certainly have no quarrel.  But I am not here to discuss politics or legal structure.  I am here to discuss theology and ideals.  On the count of murder, how would their own conscience find them?  Well I think you and I both know that, as much as I am loathe to conclude, the intoxicated man is innocent and the sober man is guilty.  The intoxicated man had no control of his actions.  He did not have the ability to choose otherwise, and so cannot be held responsible.  Punishing the intoxicated man would be the equivalent of punishing a puppet.  Just as the puppet was under the control of the puppeteer, so too was the intoxicated man under the control of the alcohol.
          How, then, can the intoxicated man be punished and for what action should he be punished?  I argue that he should be punished for intoxicating himself.  This is not my secret way of saying that intoxication should be illegal.  Remember, this is about morals, not politics.  Anyway, I argue that intoxication is immoral.  Why?  Picture this analogy: a law requires the people to pay taxes.  Someone has discovered some clever way to get around having to pay taxes.  Is not the law then required to denote that clever action as illegal?  If it did not, everyone would do it and the law would be unable to do anything about it.  There would be chaos.  The clever action has to be illegal.  
          Is this "clever action" any different from intoxication?  The man did something immoral in such a way that he could not be held accountable for the immoral thing he did.  Does not the Moral Code that decides that murder in cold blood is evil have to account for this and punish it?  He evaded the law through intoxication.  Therefore, the law must account for and punish it.                     
          Be mindful, friends.  Free will is a precious gift with which all of humanity is blessed.  We all can choose between right and wrong.  Intoxication is not just wrong; it takes an individual entirely out of the moral equation.  It is a rejection of that most precious gift which makes all of us human.  An intoxicated human might as well be an animal (and I mean that literally, not disrespectfully).