Dr Richard Land discusses abortion and slavery – 10/14/2004 – part 3

The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?”

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

Francis Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live? (Full-Length Documentary)

Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

Francis Schaeffer: What Ever Happened to the Human Race? (Full-Length Documentary)

Part 1 on abortion runs from 00:00 to 39:50, Part 2 on Infanticide runs from 39:50 to 1:21:30, Part 3 on Youth Euthanasia runs from 1:21:30 to 1:45:40, Part 4 on the basis of human dignity runs from 1:45:40 to 2:24:45 and Part 5 on the basis of truth runs from 2:24:45 to 3:00:04

 

 

Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. I asked over and over again for one liberal blogger to come forward and tell me when they thought an unborn baby should be protected by our government and finally I got someone to do that. In fact, several stepped forward.

On 1-24-13 I took on the child abuse argument put forth by Ark Times Blogger “Deathbyinches,” and the day before I pointed out that because the unborn baby has all the genetic code at  the time of conception that they will have for the rest of their life many scientists were pro-life. I have also answered some of the questions that pro-abortion bloggers have asked me such as what should be the punishment for doctors that perform abortions if abortion is outlawed and I also answered questions concerning the movie “The Cider House Rules” and I have discussed the PBS film series “The Abolitionists” and how that relates to this issue of abortion.

On 1-30-13 I posted on the Arkansas Times Blog the following:

Both Elwood and MountainGirl brought up the subject and you both deserve an answer too.
ELWOOD ASKED on 1-29-13:

Does a fetus deserve to have a host who’s well fed, clothed, fed and has a secure, clean home and sufficient medical care at all stages of the “unborn person’s” life regardless of ability to pay?

Next MOUNTAINGIRL ASSERTED on 1-29-13:
It seems that humans now fall into two categories: the unborn person, and the born person.

I have asked many times before and continue to wonder: why is there a fanatical obsession with protecting the “unborn” person, but once it is born, an equal obsession by the same people with cutting off all services(food, shelter, heath care, etc.) to provide for a stable and healthy environment for that “born” person to thrive.

There appears to be a much higher premium on the unborn person than the born person.

I might understand this a little better if the people fighting so hard to bring these unwanted unborn persons into the world were fighting equally as hard to provide for their needs once they are born.

__________

A simple answer to Elwood’s question is not possible but I can answer it with two comments. I do think they can achieve those things better if the society if more free economically. This would cause more economic growth and we would cut down on poverty. I don’t think the government should mandate that everyone has free healthcare. Your answer is more government poverty programs.

Peter Kirsanow of the National Review wrote on Jan 28, 2013:

The War on Poverty. $15,000,000,000,000 has been spent by the federal and state governments on 122 separate welfare programs since 1964, according to a Cato analysis. The poverty rate in 1964 was 19 percent and falling. Nearly 50 years later, the rate is still more than 15 percent and climbing. What difference, at this point, does trillions in welfare spending make?

_________

Part 1 of “Created Equal”

I think that both Elwood and Mountaingirl are guilty of believing that our country should be going after “equality of outcome.” My suggestion is they take 30 minutes and watch the Free to Choose Episode “Created Equal” by Milton Friedman. https://thedailyhatch.org/2012/04/27/milton…

Part 2 of “Created Equal”

The program notes:
In this program, Milton Friedman visits India, the U.S., and Britain, examining the question of equality. He points out that our society traditionally has embraced two kinds of equality: equality before God and equality of opportunity. The first of these implies that human beings enjoy a certain dignity simply because they are members of the human community. The second suggests societies should allow the talents and inclinations of individuals to unfold, free from arbitrary barriers. Both of these concepts of equality are consistent with the goal of personal freedom.

Part 3 of “Created Equal”

In recent years, there has been growing support for a third type of equality, which Dr. Friedman calls “equality of outcome.” This concept of equality assumes that justice demands a more equal distribution of the economic fruits of society. While admitting the good intentions of those supporting the idea of equality of outcome, Dr. Friedman points out that government policies undertaken in support of this objective are inconsistent with the ideal of personal freedom. Advocates of equality of outcome typically argue that consumers must be protected by government from the insensitivities of the free market place.

Part 4 of “Created Equal”

Dr. Friedman demonstrates that in countries where governments have pursued the goal of equality of outcome, the differences in wealth and well being between the top and the bottom are actually much greater than in countries that have relied on free markets to coordinate economic activity. Indeed, says Dr. Friedman, it is the ordinary citizen who benefits most from the free market system. Dr. Friedman concludes that any society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither. But the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with both greater freedom and great equality.

On a later post on 1-30-13 I asserted:

Elwood and MountainGirl both argue that an unwanted baby would add a burden to their family. Then why isn’t adoption a good alternative?

Frank Beckwith has noted, “…we must ask whether or not the unborn entity is fully human, for hardship does not justify homicide. In such cases, those in the religious and charitable communities should help lend financial and emotional support to the family. And it may be wise — if it is a case of extreme hardship — for the woman to put her baby up for adoption, so that she may give to others the gift of parenthood.”

Baylor University philosopher and bioethicist Baruch Brody comments:

In an age where we doubt the justice of capital punishment even for very dangerous criminals, killing a fetus who has not done any harm, to avoid a future problem it may pose, seems totally unjust. There are indeed many social problems that could be erased simply by destroying those persons who constitute or cause them, but that is a solution repugnant to the values of society itself. In short, then, if the fetus is a human being, the appeal to its being unwanted justifies no abortions.
___________
If you do think that by voting free healthcare and welfare for everyone then you will end up like Greece. The founding fathers knew this and warned against it. I do think that Milton Friedman makes a very convincing argument that if government stays out of the way then the free market will create the kind of wealth that it did in Europe and the USA for many decades.

Related posts: