ThruFire

Burning off the dross

January 22, 2011
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off

Prochoice – words you choose

Last night I did something I haven’t done in a long time – engaged in an on-line abortion debate on twitter, using hashtags like #Prochoice and #Abortion. Yes – crazy, I know, but I was doing it with a purpose. I wanted to test some insights I gained over the last year. I laughed when some of my followers couldn’t make sense of what appeared to be a very bizarre conversation.

Yesterday was BlogForChoiceDay promoted by NARAL, formally National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws – then National Abortion Rights Action League – and now no longer an acronym – just NARAL. Abortion advocates play loopy semantic games, distancing themselves from the word “abortion”. It’s easy to see why – with legal defense for partial-birth abortion, and madmen like Kermit Gosnell the people of the United States are beginning to understand abortion is like a bad addiction we can’t control.

Blog for pro-life day

Given the upcoming anniversary of the Roe vs Wade decision, Jill Stanek decided to confront NARAL with a “Ask Them What They Mean By ‘Choice’ Blog Day”. I’m happy to say advocates of life stepped out in force – to address the evasive rhetoric.

I’d like to think reasoned response would be effective, but that requires reasoning on the other side. There was simply no sign of that. Words and rationale have become meaningless to many young abortion advocates. They make statements like “Prochoice is Prolife”. They throw infantile slurs at you. One even claimed she never was a fetus. She was being serious.

When confronted directly about why they advocate abortion – if it’s because they had one – they are evasive. If abortion were beneficial as they claimed, then why cover-up or deny it? I have no problem telling people I had a lower abdominal hernia repair. If you are advocating what you’ve never personally experienced, why should your advice be accepted as credible?

Every woman who has personally shared with me indicated the adverse impact abortion has had upon her life. How could you not? It’s unnatural to have any medical implement shoved deep inside you or to take a regimen of pills to bleed out the developing child. Women suffer from miscarriages. To deny women don’t suffer from abortion is crazy. It is most likely the word “crazy” came from the Greek word “akrasia”.

Selection of words is powerful – it can change minds, particularly your own. But that’s not always a good thing – particularly for the post-abortive. The lesson I walked away with last night was my need to choose my words carefully – treating each prochoice advocate as post-abortive. Responding maliciously would have driven them further from the path of reality, and further into dark despair.

Denial is a painful thing – the lash-outs, the warps and twists of logic, the evasiveness, the defense of the indefensible, the abandonment of reason and rationale doesn’t call for our condemnation – it’s evidence of a need for compassion and enduring love.

The most telling indicator in our arguments last night – all respondents fell silent, confused when confronted with love. That’s what’s lacking when they take their child. That’s what’s missing when they promoted abortion of other children.

That’s what we need to provide for them and towards them.

June 15, 2010
by Chris Arsenault
1 Comment

What explains the “ites” in the Bible?

A first look through Genesis, well actually all of Torah (first 5 books of the Holy Bible) often astounds the reader with a collection of names, such as: Hamites, Japhethites, Caananites, Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Sinites, Arvadites, Hamathites, Zemarites, Perrizites, etc.

They all end with the suffix ‘ites’. What does this suffix mean?

The first two names I listed above (Hamites, and Japhethites) come from Noah’s sons. Japheth was oldest, followed by Shem, and then Ham – his youngest. It’s also pretty easy to see Caanan in there – the son of Ham. How is this suffix related to these people? Well it turns out – that’s what ‘ites’ is all about.

Lately, I’ve been studying Ancient Hebrew over at http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/.

The origin of so many words is fascinating. And the more you understand the root words of Hebrew, and the origin of the Aleph-Bet the more amazing the Bible becomes. The hint for the meaning of ‘ites’ (properly pronounced ‘eet’) comes from this page on the Hebrews.

A good translation is “people of “, along the lines of descendants, or people groups. The root name is a primary node in terms of the branch of a tree, and identifies your clan-relationship – your people.

As for the people of Shem – they are shemyt – semites.

March 13, 2010
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off

BioSLED – Bodily-autonomy Abortion Absurdity

How to apply BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice against those who insist a mother’s “right to bodily autonomy” justifies abortion. This is a brief, rapid response while the original response to this argument can be found here.

Over the last few years I’ve run into an increasing number of very hard core abortion supporters who make statements like this:

Not that whether or not a fetus is a child should matter to the debate. Child or not, no one has the right to use a person’s body against his or her consent.

and from another:

Human beings may not occupy another human body unless they are welcome there.

This is a variant of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument supported by Eileen McDonagh, David Boonin et al.

Tri-mobius knot

It’s an absolute absurdity in circular reasoning. Do they really expect the embryonic human being to change their own environment/development process?

By rejecting developmental differences of human beings, one stage of human development is equated with every other. “Being a child doesn’t matter”, thus they assume a pro-life premise: all humans are “equal”. Time doesn’t matter.

Yet, they reject the child’s critical development time within the womb – that’s the reason for the abortion! So time within that environment does matter to them.

You can’t avoid the absurd contradiction. Either time as a child present within the environment of the mother’s womb matters or it does not.

Thomson, McDonagh, Boonan, et al. obfuscate this critical premise.

If this issue was irrelevant to the abortion argument, both humans would have the same legal “rights”. So, if mother and daughter swapped places (putting the mother into her daughter’s womb), then the daughter would have the “legal right” to abort her mother. (?!)

If you say no she doesn’t have the right to abort her, you’ve just contradicted yourself, because there’s one body within the other. If you say yes she can, you’ve also contradicted yourself because you’ve now upheld the bodily autonomy of the daughter. What’s it gonna be?

If you claim the mother daughter swapping places is absurd and could not happen – then you’re validating that the mother-child relationship is unique and cannot be compared to non-parent relationships. In fact, to reduce the parent relationship to one of simple physical dependency is to eliminate the most essential aspect of the relationship!

So claiming abortion is justified by bodily autonomy is an argument that commits suicide via absurd circular reasoning.

You can’t escape the reality of the sequential, biological and ever growing basis of life.

March 2, 2010
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off

Does might make rights?

Recently I drove past the local Planned Parenthood. On one side of the building was a vinyl banner that said something like:

I believe reproductive choice is a human right.

I’m curious – what exactly does Planned Parenthood mean by that? If it’s “reproductive choice”, they must mean we’re talking about human beings. Humans reproduce after their own kind (heredity and all that). And “choice” seems about whether you willingly want to reproduce – that is, create another human being.

So is this banner about consenting to sexual intercourse? After all, if someone forced reproduction upon someone, that wouldn’t be a choice. It would be rape, which is the use of force.

And we know human beings shouldn’t be forcefully victimized by other human beings.

All human rights are based on the right to life. If that right can be denied, then what other rights matter?

Is this banner about abortion? Not if what is being “reproduced” is a human being.

However that statement only works if you also believe that “might makes rights”.

In other words, defenseless innocents can be killed by those they depend upon for mercy.

Prior to 1973, the reproductive “right” to abortion did not exist. This is called a “positive right”, created by a government or other body.

Since when does a positive right override the inalienable right to life?

It doesn’t.

December 25, 2009
by Chris Arsenault
Comments Off

Merry Christmas!

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Praise God!!!

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Luke 2:8-20

May you all have a wonderful and blessed Christmas, and may the Light of the world shine in your life.

Image from The Nativity Story.

August 21, 2009
by Chris Arsenault
2 Comments

Is Abortion Healthcare?

Here’s some questions to ask your US representatives:


Does the proposed healthcare bill allow distinctions between wanted and unwanted human beings?

Isn’t subjective actions against human beings based on various physical features discrimination?

Clearly, it wouldn’t be reproductive health without a child, and I don’t believe you’re saying pregnancy coverage would be excluded from the bill.

We also know that to some, it’s clearly a baby, while to others – an unwanted fetus (Latin for offspring-child).

You’re asking taxpayers to support paying for violent mortal discrimination against a particular class of innocent human beings.

Do you truly believe in choice?

If so, who are you to tell me and every other American who stands for life that we have no choice when it comes to our tax dollars being used to support predatory, discriminating violence in the form of elective abortion, abortive birth control or any other term you use to avoid describing the destruction of innocent human beings?

Because if you don’t exclusively stand on the principle that the life of each human being is immeasurably valuable, then you must believe each life is of some utilitarian value, meaning subjugation of the weakest by the strongest human beings.

That being the case – where do I and the remainder of your constituents stand in that regard?

And why would we want a representative who doesn’t consider us equal?