SEARCH

edit SideBar

AbortionNatLaw2

< 1 | AbortionNatLaw

 procedure or any theorem, which treats human life "•! the basis of  arguments which might equally 
 well apply to a bea; is unacceptable and is a violation of natural law. Thus, the feminist 
 argument for abortion, is a violation of natural law. Or the Freemasonic argument for abortion, 
 is a violation of natural law, and therefore, abortion practiced with the intent of the feminists 
 or the Freemasons is a violation of natural law pure and simple, because it by intent attacks the 
 axiomatic features of natural law; whereas on the assertion of anti-abortion as a doctrine, that 
 is much weaker, in terms of authority, even though it has been made an official Church doctrine 
 and thus is often mistakenly interpreted to have an axiomatic bearing.
 For example, let's take the case of the celibate priesthood. The celibate priesthood is obviously 
 not an axiom. It is not an axiomatic value of Christianity. There is no basis for saying so: as a 
 matter of fact, it was introduced, apart from the monastic part, which has a very nasty aspect in 
 many quarters, particularly Eastern monastic cults; it was introduced essentially by Gregory, 
 against corruption of the priesthood by the inheritance business and so forth and so on, though 
 there were many other arguments for it.
 So in effect, it was a postulate, not really a theorem, but a postulate of the Church, that 
 priests should be celibate. And that has been maintained as an institution for essentially 
 pragmatic reasons in the best sense of pragmatic, that is, for institutional reasons, and it's 
 deemed that the practice in history, shows that the celibate priesthood is a better institution 
 from some standpoint of the Church, though the rise of homosexuality as an advocacy, rather than 
 treating it as a disease, puts that itself into question, particular in the case of the United 
 States, where you see the homosexual factor taking over the priesthood to such a large degree, 
 that that shows what the problem is.
 So, abortion, of course, is much stronger among the three denominations, the Protestant as well 
 as Catholic and Jewish, than the celibacy issue, but is a theorem of belief, which has been made 
 into a doctrine. And thus we have to look at the question of abortion policy from two 
 standpoints. To the extent that it is consistent with the axiomatic features of natural law—i.e., 
 imago viva Dei and what that implies—there is a positive, natural law smiles on the anti-abortion
 doctrine.
 To the extent that abortion is promoted by feminists or Freemasons, it must be opposed as an 
 outright evil, not merely because what is proposed is an individual abortion; but what is 
 proposed is a policy which is itself a theorem of Satanic premises. That is, I think, the 
 summation in a nutshell of the problem, and if one argues from that standpoint, I think one has 
 it correctly situated within the terms of natural law. But you must include consideration of the 
 fact, that feminism and Freemasonry are both Satanic doctrines in principle; and that the 
 advocacy of abortion from either standpoint, is purely evil and must be fought, on those grounds; 
 whereas the claim for the absolute against abortion, from the Christian standpoint, is on strong 
 grounds, but is not fully on absolute grounds. But rather, the issue is: from what standpoint do 
 you do it? Do you make a decision from the standpoint of a commitment to natural law, that is, 
 the principle of eimago viva Deie; or do you appraoch the question from a pragmatic standpoint or 
 simply an absolute standpoint in itself? If you pose it from a prohibition in and of itself, then 
 you are committing a fallacy. In other words, if you say, this is a doctrine we must defend, 
 disregarding anything else, that doctrine per se we must defend, that is a fallacy. The issue 
 here is, are you acting on the basis of natural law?
 An example is the single-issue anti-abortion movement, which we saw was, to a very large degree 
 corrupt or politically rotten, we saw that in 1979 and 1980 in that campaign that year, where we 
 saw that the anti-abortion movement played in large degree—particularly the leadership—a very  
 rotten role on all kinds of issues, including euthanasia, on the grounds of a single issue.
 The issue here is not abortion as such—that is an
 issue—but the primary issue is from what standpoint do you
 approach the decision? If you approach the decision from the
 standpoint of the axiomatic, absolute value under natural law of
 eimago viva Deie, and you act in a manner which is in intent and
 efficiently consistent with "imago viva Dei," then your action is
 within natural law.
 If you act from an axiomatic assumption, which rejects
 "imago viva Dei", as does the Freemasonic or feminist system,
 then if you are opposed to abortion from that standpoint, you
 would be doing something evil, because the intent was evil, from
 a philosophical standpoint.
 So that again, in sum, I think is a fair description of the
 situation.
Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on December 24, 2007, at 07:41 AM