Immorality of Abortion

Abortion, something referred to by Pope John Paul II as “the Unspeakable Crime,” has been a controversial issue for the last half of the last century and today. Some that all creatures have a right to life, even the unborn fetus. Others argue that it is the right to a woman’s body and her choice as to what she wants done with it. It’s the latter that needs to be examined in this case, for what is the choice in question? If a woman has a right to her body, then shouldn’t it be up to her to make the right decisions for it? If two consenting adults have unprotected sex, than the obvious consequence is pregnancy. If two people are willing to do such a thing knowing the outcome, is the woman not choosing to commit the act that gets her pregnant? And what of the rights of the unborn fetus? It can’t speak for itself, so is it truly right for an irresponsible person to make that decision for them?

It’s true that all creatures big and small have a right to life. It’s been proven by modern science that a fetus is a life of its own. As a life of its own, the creature should have a right to have a chance in this world. If a woman is in a position where she knows she is going to have sex and isn’t willing to get pregnant, then she should make sure she is prepared to engage in the act using protection. If she’s not willing to commit to that then she should get a form of birth control before the conception happens to avoid the pregnancy. If the woman is not willing to do any of these, then she should not take it out on a creature that is not at fault for her unwillingness to control what she does.

One may argue that a fetus, while living, is not yet a homo sapiens, at least in the biological sense, it is still irrelevant. Depriving any creature of its right to living is immoral. Not giving a fetus the right to live is no different than running over a dog with ones car. As frustrated as some people will get with this argument, it only shows how arrogant humans can be to think that they are above all other animals in nature because the creature homo sapiens is the only one that can discuss such a matter. Human beings are in the natural line in the animal kingdom and are not above any other creature in the hierarchy. Human technology may make people believe that humans are above other creatures, but humans are in fact not. That being said a fetus is no less of a living creature than a full fledged homo sapiens that live and dwell in a community.

While aborting a fetus may be immoral, there are two instances in which a woman should have the option to have an abortion. One is being if having a child will result in complications that could kill her, the child, or both. Risking one’s life to save another isn’t completely necessary, and while a fetus may have a right to life, it’s the woman that has had time to develop a personality of her own and knows what it’s like to live in the world and should be able to continue to do so. The other instance is if a woman was the victim of a rape the caused her to get pregnant. In this case the woman is not at fault and did nothing that showed a lack of constraint and shouldn’t live with the painful memory of such a traumatic event. If neither one of these circumstances is the case, than the woman should not be given the option to have an abortion. People should take more personal responsibility and monitor their actions better. Nothing is more gratifying than living a healthy and responsible life.

Altruism

The gift of sharing and helping one’s fellow human is something that has existed as long as humans have, and some argue even longer. These unselfish acts are known as “altruism” and are a trait evolved into many creatures, including homo sapiens. Altruism is thought to have been evolved as a form of looking out for the greater good of a community or group. An example being a fowl making a loud noise when it spots a predator. Even though this fowl puts itself in more danger, it still alerts the other fowls in the process to help them avoid danger. The reason for this is as simple as the fowl does this because it’s been bred and evolved to alert it’s brethren in hopes of having the favor return. The comparison to this and humans and goodwill should be drawn here, for even though the example given has little to do with a post gatherer-hunter society, it still is an example of good will expressed for the sake of the greater good. It is a great quality evolved into creatures because it helps insure survival for a length of time.

It’s in every human’s best interest to share and give as much as they can on behalf of the community. While this shouldn’t be forced onto humans through a series of taxes encouraged by greed and envy, it should be encouraged for one person to go out of their way to help another. The reason is simple, if person a lends his or her shirt to person b, hopefully person b would do the same for person a when person a is in the same predicament person b was in prior to this. It’s in everyone’s best interest to give as much as one can out of his or her own volition, it also can’t be stressed enough to give to one who can’t give back due to their lack of resources. The reason for this is just as simple, for just as person a gives their shirt to person b in hopes of getting something in return if they were in the same situation, so should person a give just as willingly to person c in the chance that person b sees it and is willing to do the same for person a in case he or she found themselves in said situation.

Though people should give and to an extent expect back in one way or another, it should not be taken too far. One should not give simply to use it as an excuse to get back later. Not all people are capable of giving, so it’s not in the best interest of anyone to expect someone in this situation to give or to force them to give through a series of taxes, i.e. state sales taxes or city sales taxes, in order to fund a false greater good. It is for the reason of altruism that people should pay less taxes, as to free them up to help them manage their supplies better and to give the less fortunate who pay taxes a break. There will always be people who take advantage of the altruistic will of humans, but these people should not be punished or mocked, though they should be led by example. It’s not in the place of anyone to force another to pay for their own misfortune no matter the circumstance.

Without self restraint, altruism will fail. While people should be entitled to buy things of luxury as much as their income allows, they shouldn’t go so far as to solely spend their income on luxuries and their own necessities while ignoring the greater good. Many people in a socialist society do such a thing, as they do in a society bogged down with many socialist programs. Without the feel or need for self discipline with one’s finances, a person would be more interested in looking out for themselves instead of participating in the act of goodwill and humanity. With too many taxes for people to pay, this is expected because a person is going to be more inclined to lookout for themselves above the community because they usually don’t see anything outside the realm of themselves and taxes. Likewise, this same person is likely to complain about paying the taxes and use it as an excuse for not participating in altruism. For this reason all people need to be free to do as they please with their income and pay less taxes, to encourage and learn what good will is and learn better self restraint and responsibility. For it’s only in a society that learns from mistakes as opposed to the society that gets bailed out will it succeed. Through self restraint, self discipline, and learning can a society prosper and develop into a better tomorrow.

What liberty is

Personal liberty, something that everyone is born with. It's an inalienable right that is more important than any other. The freedom to say what you will without fear of persecution, to practice any or no religion, and to live a lifestyle according to your wants and needs. As simple of an idea as it sounds, liberty is much harder for people to accept than most people realize. Any time something comes along that is deemed "strange" or "immoral" by society is stopped by a series of laws used to try to stamp out the behavior of the "odd individual." While most people aren't bothered by the actions of others, some people are. Enough are to crush the liberties of the individual they are opposed to. The United States had a principle base in the idea that all men are created equal, and that freedom of expression is key in a healthy and developed society. This idea is being slowly eroded by Congress as a way to either distract people from real issues or stamp out what is deemed as "weird," though often enough these laws usually never make it past the house or senate floor, and some get reversed.

The immoral act of trying to deprive people of their identity touches on many levels. Homosexuality is one of these issues. In the United States, a person can't join the military if he or she is an open homosexual, this is wrong regardless of whether you agree with homosexuality or not. A persons lifestyle, whether they were born that way or it was a choice, is none of the business of people who aren't physically or emotionally harmed by these actions. A person who is homosexual isn't the concern of another individual, and no one should be bothered by the lifestyle of another person. Some people say, "Homosexuality is a choice, therefore it is wrong," or, "it's unnatural and god doesn't like it." Whether or not there is any truth to these statements is irrelevant, the important part is that even if it was a choice it doesn't affect anyone other than the person who lives that life and the people who live that life with the person. The United States was built on the idea that all people should be able to live their lives with the choices they make anyways, so it's no concern of another individual.

In certain states there are also laws that try to ban certain sexual practices that people do. Until 2003, for example, there was a law in Texas prohibiting sodomy. In several states, including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C., it is illegal to perform oral sex on another individual. There are several other similar laws on the books in several other states, though most of them are never really put into practice, it shows how far some people are willing to go to interfere with the lives of others. Simply put, what happens in the bedroom of consenting adults isn't the business of anyone else. Unless the sex acts are used to intentionally harm another individual or to have sex with a minor, they shouldn't be illegal.

Most importantly, liberty is being able to say what you want and practice any religion you want. If a business such as Target wants to say "Merry Christmas" as opposed to "Happy Holidays," then it's solely the business of Target, it's employees, the people that shop there, and no other. If a person has that big of an issue with something like that, they always have the choice to go somewhere else that doesn't. People should be free to practice any faith openly, even if it is the majority religion, provided it doesn't tread on the rights of another human being.

Being able to say what you want without fear is equally important. There are words in the US that aren't allowed on television either. There's an unfounded outcry that children hearing these words will somehow corrupt them and harm them, despite the fact that these so called "awful" words only truly have as much power as humans give them. The US constitution strictly prohibits any laws being passed by congress that limit free speech, yet there is an FCC that tells people what they can and can not say. Not only did congress pass a law limiting free speech, but the unconstitutional law is also funded by the tax payer, meaning the US citizen has to pay in the literal sense to have our personal liberties limited. In order for a healthy and happy society to truly develop and prosper, the people need to be as free as possible to express themselves however they see fit.

Less Social Works Programs=Less Taxes

Social programs, the government’s way of pretending to be altruistic. It's a politician’s way of raising our taxes in a way that makes them look good. They take money out of our checks and charge us taxes on top of that for our daily necessities and recreational items. They get away with doing it by convincing gullible people that without installing new social programs the country will fall apart and people will starve and there will be anarchy on the streets. Ok, maybe it's me being melodramatic in that statement, but I'm not stretching the truth too much. The fact of the matter is they install the programs, play on voters emotions, raise our taxes, and in the end it's all for votes. After it's installed they come back the next election cycle and have the audacity to say, "Look, I fought for us to have this." These politicians fought for one thing, their own image and their job; they don't care about the people.

Socialism sounds good on the outside, and in theory it works, however socialism is nothing more than a buttered up way of saying, "kleptocracy" which is what it truly is. These social programs are put in place as a way of convincing us that we're paying taxes for the greater good, which isn't even remotely true. Anything a person works for should go into their wallet, and the only taxes paid should go straight into public safety and defense and little more. While some social programs are good, and do help protect people, most of the good ones are abused and broken and politicians are less interested in fixing them so we can pay less taxes and more interested in proposing more spending bills that come out of our paychecks.

There's no moral obligation on the part of any working human being to be forced to pay for another. In Peoria, the tax payers are paying for a museum to be erected and the tax payers get absolutely nothing back from it. In other words, people are working to pay for someone else’s success. There is no difference between this and slavery. The definition is the exact same and it should be treated as such. If a person has absolutely no direct benefit from something, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

Most argue that capitalism is fueled by greed and oiled by the blood of the worker while the hot shot business owner does nothing and gets all the money for it. This is the moral justification, according to most left wingers, for establishing social programs. This couldn't be further from the truth. The rich get richer, not by exploiting, but by working and making good decisions. Most socialist enthusiasts say "the rich are getting richer" as if it's a bad thing, when in fact the rich getting richer shows success not only on their part, but the part of the workers and consumers that supported these people. With more social programs in play, failing businesses are given an unnecessary second chance that's supported by tax payers who did no wrong and did nothing to cause the collapse. It's then, and only then, that rich people getting richer becomes wrong, when they're given the money of people who did nothing to cause their collapse.

The most frequently used argument for the justification of social works and welfare programs is that without them, the poor would starve and people making bare minimum wage would suffer and never be given a chance, but this is also an unfounded argument. Few, very few, working adults and families survive on minimum wage, if any at all. The majority of people who make minimum wage are people who have never had jobs, or people that are 16-20. The majority of these still are teenagers that live in houses with people, i.e. parents or grandparents, which have jobs that are well enough to support them. The idea of families starving because they're making minimum wage is nothing more than a pathos argument based in no fact. Again, it boils down to the fact that the only reason why people don't have enough money to support their families is because they're being taxed to death by the government because of broken and unnecessary social programs. Don't believe the lies, it's time to make real change and stop this autocratic nightmare now.