Is morality relative or absolute?

Many people see Satanism as a form of "Rational Humanistic Hedonism". How closely related are Humanism and Satanism? This will take a brief look at those two beliefs.

Thus it seems that in the most general sense of the word, Satanism has a belief which is akin to humanism. The belief in the power of humans.

In reality, very few books or discussions deal with this, in the recognition that a human is a part of society, and is not society itself. Because of this, individual morality is a different conception from sociological morality. The only book that even comes close to addressing this problem that I've found is "Doing the Right Thing: Cultivating Your Moral Intelligence" by Aaron Hass.

For an individual, the most important moral question is, "What's the right thing to do?" and figure out what we would do and what we want to happen. The first great problem is the ability to empathize. Without the ability to empathize with someone else's pain, any type of morality is just an abstract concept. If someone cannot recognize that it's wrong to hurt an animal because an animal feels pain, there's no hope in ever teaching this person how to be moral, instead, only a recognition in the strict sense of, "I get punished when I do this."

This clearly isn't going to help someone with moral reasonings. The job of society, (read that as: Parents and teachers), is to provide a solid groundwork for morality, and the job of an individual to see if a moral principle is applicable to a situation.

The second key principle is that our morality should be based upon a system of justice. That is to say, based upon reciprocal consideration rather than on the use of superior and/or arbitrary power. Fairness is learned by cooperative play in cultures throughout the World. As argued in Robert Wright's "non-zero, the logic of human destiny", the ability of humans and other animals to coexist is at least partially dependant upon mutual cooperation. This is, of course, an idealistic proposition. The fact is that societies laws tend to be based upon "Might is Right", rather than non-zero logic. However, someone is "mighty" only so long as they have supporters. Thus, it is the job of idealists to "turn the tide" and become the might in this sense, if they want their views to be taken on a subject.

The third key concept is in the use of guilt. Worthless guilt is thrown about incessitently. Guilt is not necessarily a bad thing, it teaches us when to understand something we have done is detrimental to ourselves and others, however, needless guilt is a bad thing. The guilt of evangelicals is a guilt of having been born and of merely existing. Since this cannot be faulted to an individual, it is pointless and worthless. This brings faint memories of how converts to Christianity in Mexico would commit suicide after conversion. The Christians converting them would utilize (unbeknowing to them) psychological tricks to convert the natives, but because they emphasized the evil aspects of it first and foremost, with no reinforcing of good, the natives killed themselves out of remorse. Religion can be quite dangerous in the wrong hands.

From an individual standpoint, here's a brief and quick way to look at ethics. (This is hardly a comprehensive list, but it is a decent general guide to start getting someone to think morally.)

John McCrone's, "The Myth of Irrationality" deals with this subject thoroughly. There was a prevailing idea, (and in fact, there still is), in what was termed the "Noble Savage". That is to say, that without human contact, a human raised in the wild would still have intristic senses of right and wrong, and be a noble person. You may recall that there are earlier forms of arguments which state that humans have intristic senses of right and wrong, irregardless of social conditioning. The Noble Savage theory stated that society was what turned a person into a bad person. Rousseau was an idealist who believed in the innate good qualities of mankind. The competing theory was Hobbes' angry beast, that any child not raised by society was a complete monster. Though several cases of "feral children" had abounded in myth, legend, and popular folk-lore, there were never any well-documented cases. That is until two cases which were too well-documented and too unexplicable in their implications came out.

(Other variations on the "nature" of man have been talked about. Bernard F. Dick argues that the suppression of the natural, bestial side of man results in its unhealthy eruption and the consequent societal breakdown. John F. Fitzgerald and John R. Kayser suggest that, in addition to original sin, society's failure to reconcile reason with mystery causes the breakdown. Kathleen Woodward contends that when the beast is not suppressed strictly enough, when law and order is lax, evil erupts. William Golding, author of "Lord of the Flies", believes that men are inherently evil, and thus that is what is reflected in "Lord of the Flies". He purposefully didn't add certain things in the novel to make it so that fighting was necessary for survival, the book relates that the kids fought simply because they were taken over by their beastial side.)

The first one is the "wolf boy" of France. He was taken in by a tanner, and presented before a selection of the most educated men at the time for study. The first of the implications from this test were that human did not possess an innate ability to speak. This hardly comes as a surprise to modern day observers, but in these times, (very early 19th century), speech was considered to be a quality which everyone possessed. The scientists looking at the boy couldn't understand why he didn't have the ability to communicate. They then hypothesized that his vocal cords must have withered from a lack of use.

The boy was turned over to Abbe Pierre-Joseph Bonnaterre, who conducted a series of investigations on him. The boy was not deaf. Another assumption to the nature of the boys inability to speak was that he was deaf, or "dumb", because they didn't really grasp that sound and speech were necessary to each other. Thus it was assumed anyone who couldn't speak was just stupid. The boy's hearing was, in fact, actually quite good. Someone snapping a walnut open would cause his head to turn about immediately in that direction. Bonnaterre also observed that the boys vocal cords were fine, he could make a wide variety of grunts, laughs, and murmers.

The boy didn't ever adopt the ability to have social graces. He would only eat food that was familiar to him, he wouldn't wear clothing, and would use the bathroom whenever he felt like it, wherever that might be. The naturalist, Jean-Jacques Virey complained after seeing Victor: "He seeks no harm, he doesn't know what that means. He just sits there in innocence...Therefore it is not possible to affirm that our boy from Aveyron is either good or bad; he is just mild...and has no relation to us at all."

The boy, whose name was Victor, was then sent to the top doctor on psychological problems, (wasn't called that at the time). The doctor investigated Victor and concluded that the boy was a complete idiot, and that was the reason why he behaved in the way that he did. Anyone who would try to turn him into a civilized human being would be wasting their time. Jean Itard decided that he could do change the boy. Using methods that would probably not go well today, he managed to get the boy to be able to speek very simple words, to wear clothing, and to at least show interest in human company.

Itard eventually hit a wall that he couldn't get past. Human babies learn new languages very fast, and between the ages of 2 to 4, play with words and start developing speech patterns quicker than adults do. Victor simply couldn't, he couldn't be taught how to read, or how to write, or anything. However, one of the most interesting implications is that Victor didn't have any sense of time. History and past events meant nothing to him, his two focuses were sleep and food.

In explaining why Victor couldn't speak, Itard's methods were criticized. It's true, Itard was a bit clumsy, however, Victor received more formal and strict lessons than any children do. What it seems happened is that the human brain develops very rapidly during the early years of childhood. The ability of humans to be coordinated, to be mentally aware, to be able to learn new things, to speak and read, all happen at this early level. I believe that the human neurons get packed more closely together if a child is raised intelligently, with a denser vascular network in the localized area that is being used. This means a greater supply of nutrients to the brain, along with an increased ability for localized activities. Though there is some cross-over in intelligence, this explains why certain people display "aptitudes" for certain intellectual skills. Also, it is arguable that Victor wasn't stupid. In order to live in the wild, Victor must at least, have some intelligence for survival. Many of today's "enlightened" men couldn't have survived in the same conditions as Victor.

The wolf boy was one of the most well-known cases of animals raising children, however, there are a few other stories which seem to be real. Apocryphal stories of children raised by animals tend to make them great people, founders of Rome and things along that line. However, the real stories are much different. The first reports of feral children were recorded by German monks in the 14th Century. In 1344, a 12-year-old found in Wetterau three years later, was said to have lived to 80. Prior to him, a boy had been found 3 years earlier, who was seven. He died too shortly after capture to be of much use.

The second child was described as being as wild and immune to cold and discomfort, just like Victor. The strangest thing though was that like Victor, the wolf boys discovered could not walk upright. Victor used to run on all fours at times, and was usually hunched over oddly. Rousseau had looked through literature to formulate his noble savage theory, and he thought that they would have a fine, erect posture. He thus explained it that the wolf-boys had learned to walk like animals to be one with their forest guardians.

Another wolf-boy found was that of Peter. Peter had only been left in the wild for a year, and as such, managed to learn quicker than other feral boys. Though people sought to learn what state humans were at prior to civilization, the boy was mostly just a disappointment. Jonathan Swift, commented: "This night I saw the wild boy whose arrival here hath been the subject of half our talk this fortnight...[but] I can hardly think him wild in the sense they report him."

One of the major places where children raised by animals were found was in India. The Indian wolves are different from European wolves, being less aggressive, and being that only the alpha female is allowed to breed. The other female wolves share in raising the youngsters, but as far as animal psychology goes, they must have an intristic desire to raise their own children.

In the 1850's, an English army colonel, William Sleeman, wrote of six or seven cases that he alone had heard of and felt to be reliable. His accounts seem to be credible because they confirm what more well-documented cases state. The children ran crouched on all fours, refused all food except for raw or rotting meat, showed nothing but fear for humans, and, of course, none could speak although they could hear and make wolf-like growls. Psychologists of the day dismissed these cases because they didn't conform to what their ideal was for a child without social upbringing. Though psychologists didn't believe in speech as being a natural born gift, they did still believe that humans possessed an innate ability to rationalize and have long-term memory. The very blank mentality which William Sleeman talked about didn't fit into this picture.

However, one case came up in the 1920's that was just too well-documented and attested to be dismissed by psychologists. A missionary in Northern India named Joseph Singh heard a story about two ghost children accompanying wolves. Intrigued by this, Joseph went about devising a way to observe the children. Joseph devised an observation post, and waited to see the children. The wolves came out, sniffing the air, then bounding forward, until finally, the children were visible. The way that Singh talks about them is that they were:

Joseph lead a party which went into the wolf lair and killed the adult wolves, and capturing the wolf cubs and the children. The children were two girls, one aged three and one aged five. Their appearance was ugly because of the tattered mess that their hair was in. Joseph quickly worked to convert the girls to his idea of civilized. Joseph didn't know anything about other cases of children raised by animals, but his description fit them remarkably. Like other feral children, they wouldn't wear clothes and tore them off as soon as they were put on. They would only eat raw meat. They slept curled up together in a ball, and growled and twitched in their sleep. They only would awaken after the moon rose.

One of the more interesting developments to me was their joints. They had spent so long on all fours that their tendons and joints had shortened to the point where it was impossible for them to straighten their legs and even attempt to walk upright. They only had one emotion, and that was fear. Their senses were like wolves. Joseph tells us that they could see exceptionally well at night, and that their eyes glowed like a cat. They could smell meat from across the orphanage's three acre yard. They had exceptionally hearing, like Victor, except that the sound of human voices didn't seem audible to them.

Joseph was a poor man, but fairly well-educated. After 9 years, he managed to get one of the girls, (the other had died earlier), to be able to speak about forty words. She could never fully articulate the words though, but this was more progress than Itard had with Victor. Arnold Gesell, a Yale University child specialist, was one of the first people to do major studies on this event. His conclusion about mental development was that it was "a large scale moulding matrix, a gigantic conditioning apparatus" without which we would remain at the level of animals. However, Gesell believed that human emotions underlined this, and that the wolf instincts were only a partially overlapping thing put on top of it.

One of the other interesting things about these children was that at puberty, they understood they were having sexual urges, but didn't seem to know how to successfully deal with them. Itard described how Victor went up to a woman and flung his arms around her neck, but: "This was all, and these amorous demonstrations ended, as did all the others, with a feeling of annoyance which made him repulse the object of his passing fancy." I think this also has big implications for people who commit rape and domestic violence, not having an understanding of social graces. Especially how he was repulsed immediately after showing affection to a woman. However, that's not a topic I wish to discuss at length here.

The point is that through all of this, the key is that the development of consciousness is not innate. Rather, it is a learned process. A series of tests and consequences take place throughout our life on Earth which is reflected in how we act. According to hard determinism, we are strictly the produts of our environment, and have no choice in how we act. I do not see it as that. This is true speaking a strictly scientific test-tube manner. If I were to raise children by only giving them one successful option for each of their decisions, I could, theoretically, raise a group of adults who only knew one response to that situation. However, life teaches us a multitude of responses to a multitude of situations. To be aggressive, assertive, passive, how to respond to external stimuli, we see other people, read books, and experience for ourselves what is and is not an effective way to deal with a situation.

Therefore, the critical component of a society should be the ability to teach people how and when to respond with certain emotions. To be able to critically decide what a situation calls for, the consequences of that action, and if they want that to happen. I think that this approch to the development of morality will lead far further than assuming there are intristic human characteristics at work.Studies of criminals constantly show that they have an underdeveloped frontal lobe. The brain does NOT develop on its own, it learns by contact with external stimuli. That's the reason why children whose parents read to them regularly have higher intelligence levels than ones who don't. Likewise, the idea of morality is a learned part of the brain, which is developed.

For this study, let's look to Anderson, S.W., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D. & Damasio, A.R. Impairment of social and moral behavior related to early damage in human prefrontal cortex Nature Neuroscience 2, 1032-1037 (1999).

In this report, we find that some of the earliest evidence that brain development was part of the moral equation was in teh case of a man names Phineas Gage, who was a railroad worker, who tragically suffered brain damage by an iron bar driven through his skull in a dynamite accident. Gage survived the accident, and he had no obvious intellectual problems. However, his personality completely changed. He went from a hardworker to a drifter. His skull was preserved, and re-examined by the above group.

They concluded that Gage had damaged his prefrontal cortex, and studies of similar cases in contemporary times confirms that the prefrontal cortex, and in particular the orbitofrontal cortex, plays an important role in social and moral decision-making. Interestingly, it was like people who had lobotomies, the removal of their frontal lobe. People who do not have their frontal lobe do not have personalities, nor do they laugh at jokes. However, they can tell you why the joke is funny. They understand the why's, but they just don't get it. Likewise, those with damage to their pre-frontal cortex had factual knowledge about social and moral standards, and could answer hypothetical questions about moral dilemmas, but they couldn't apply them to their own life. Before these people had suffered brain damage, they did not have this problem, so presumeably they knew the acceptable social morality.

In the cases of children, the same thing was shown. Children who had prefrontal lesions, before the age of 16 months, both now in their twenties, had made excellent recoveries when they were young. However, they showed behavioural problems more and more severe as they grew older, including lying, stealing, verbal and physical abuse, lack of remorse, failure to plan their future, having illegitimate children and not raising them, etc. Both children had grown up in stable families, who had other siblings that were socially well-adjusted.

Even more interesting than that, was that while the adults who occured brain damage simply couldn't live a moral life, though they understood the concept, the children could not answer hypothetical moral problems. The authors comment that these patients they studied showed striking similarities to psychopaths, in their reasoning and behaviour. Though it is only preliminary research, it shows great promise, even if not totally correct.

Wait a minute, doesn't relativism imply that it’s okay to kill and steal? Sure it is, depending upon the circumstance. We stole technology from Nazi Germany that allowed us to win WWII. Do we view this as an immoral action? Well, if it is absolute, then yes, this has to be a horrible thing we did. Considering the idea of being ruled by Nazi Germany, most people will generally acknowledge that our theft of technology was okay. What about stolen products? Anything labeled “generic brand” just means another rival company took the same formula and made it their own for cheaper. This is pretty much theft. However, without this, some people would not be able to afford certain medications. Good or bad?

Do we view the death of Vlad the Impaler as a horrible thing? I surely don’t. Some people simply need to die, there’s no way around it. God didn’t create them, random genetic code structures did. People aren’t special. We have 6 billion of them running around right now. Some of them are oxygen thieves, serving no specific purpose but to steal valuable resources from the Earth. “Wait, how do we know who is and is not valuable to society?” Simple, how effectively do people live in a given society. Do they function in a given society?

“But wait a minute, you’re a Satanist. Satanists are not socially acceptable.” Well, we must examine the critical differences. One example is a female porn star who does beastiality films in Mexico. She can live here all she wants, she has not violated any rights, as Mexico doesn't have the same laws. In the same sense, owning concealed weapons in Texas is lega, in California, illegal. In one place it's a socially acceptable norm, while in another, it's a criminal offense.

When you join the United States Military, you learn that you are trading some of your rights in. The US Military operated under the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. The laws you are subjected to under the UCMJ are completely different than the ones that you are subjected to under regular United States citizenship. Why? Because of a simple fact, the military simply would not work if it were run under civilian rules. As you switch societies, what is and is not right becomes a very different idea.

The exact term I use for describing my brand of relativism is "moral relative consequentialism", which states that an idea is good or bad depending upon what it causes in reactive consequences. The relativity of that is “What do we want to happen?” For instance, torturing animals is linked directly to violent behavior. Thus, this becomes bad. Christianity is linked to having higher rates of abuse towards children because of its doctrine-sanctioned laws allowing the use of violence against children. The same is true with Islam. [Source: Capps, Donald. 1992. “Religion and Child Abuse: Perfect Together.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion vol. 31, pp. 1-14.]

Now people will get scared.“Does this mean we should outlaw Christianity and Islam?”No. Religious intolerance causes more problems than Christianity or Islam does in a controlled environment, (one that is separated from Church and State.) This is why this idea is generally rejected. It requires things to be thoroughly thought out, rather than relying upon someone else’s word. It takes time, research, recorded observations, and tested hypotheses. Humans always want “the easy way out”. Sometimes, even highly trained professionals want spoon-fed programs that will allow them to do their work in the quickest fashion, whether or not it is the “absolute” best way to do it.

What is a "moral Devil" on one side is a "Moral Saint" on the other. Let's take the easy to reference story of Sampson and Delilah. Now, to the Jews, Delilah was a wench, a backstabber. To the Philistines, she was a patron Saint. Now, if all things are absolute, who is the Saint and who's the Sinner? Delilah by all means was more open about her intent than Samson, who just went around killing Philistines, (though there’s no secular record of any such thing happening). "Moral progress" depends on where you stand. Is the allowing of homosexuals into the military and general public a sign of moral progress, on the basis of greater social tolerance, or a moral regression, on the basis that homosexuality is an action which is reprehensible in the "moral" doctrines? Well, where do we stand on this?

Thus, we come to the work of Joseph Fletcher. He emphasizes that the law should be replaced by moral wisdom, which serves as a guideline. For instance, he tackles the "Ten Commandments", of notorious fame in the Western mythos. For example, we shouldn't lie, but let's look at a man who is hiding Jews during WWII, and the Nazi's come in. They ask the man, "Are you harboring any Jews in here?" If he tells the truth, the Jews will surely die. Thus, there is little moral obligation for telling the truth as an absolute. On adultery, what if a woman is in a prison camp, and she can escape if she seduces the guard?

Cut here: Now then, I believe the mass amounts of commercialism about the Bible, Jesus Christ, and the stories of the Bible are signs of cultic brainwashing. I’ve already provided independent references that confirm that sexual abuse and physical abuse towards children are higher in Christian families than non-Christian families. So, are they now asserting that it is my right, as a concerned citizen about America, to boycott any and all stations which use references to the Christian Jesus or any other such Biblical scripture? I’m willing to bet this same Christian would bulldoze me with “the first amendment says”. Yet, they just created an argument they have no way out of. Also the fact that this strawman tactic is being obviously displayed, because what is “psychologically and morally harmful” cannot be proven. No one has a clear cut definition of what is/is not “moral”. It always changes from situation to situation.

When did we elect other people to tell us whether or not we could do something on the basis of its moral worth? We were told long ago that the song “Louie Louie” was filled with all kinds of pornographic talk, and that such a song would surely lead to the degeneration of the moral fiber of America. Now, the song plays on the Easy Listening stations. Again, these kind of vague conjectures only sound good when the mind doesn’t sit down and chew it a bit.

Our laws should be made in manners consistent with moral relative consequentialism. For instance, if a man breaks into your house, and tries to kill you, if he has no weapon and exposes his back, you now cannot kill him. He’s “defenseless” and “trying to escape”, (this law may vary from state to state). What’s the logic behind this? If a man attempts to take your life, successfully or not, they deserve to die. They have forfeited their right. Just because they were unsuccessful is no excuse. If we use this line of logic, we should remove reckless endangerment, speeding, and other laws because the person didn’t hurt anyone yet, they were unsuccessful. Attempted murder should be the same thing as murder. A society shouldn’t reward its screw-ups. That breeds a dumb society.

What about rock music? We have heard that it is linked to higher rates of crime. Well, no, it isn’t. First, banning something is an intolerant climate, and intolerant climates are what cause the greater amounts of problems. As such, we rule out for the greater good. Second, by what rule of law did we establish that music was evil? As early as the fourth century CE when the Christians took over Rome, they declared that music, science, and math were “profane subjects”. Now, fast-forwarding over 1600 years, it still happens today. The exact same debate is STILL going on. The website commonsensescience.org says that quantum mathematics are inconsistent with Christian viewpoints. That’s math. We are having heated debate over whether or not cloning should be allowed, whether we can use artificially created body parts to synthetically implant them onto humans. VH1 did a special where they discussed all kinds of various bands, from Jazz to early pop to rock & roll to Soul music, that were considered to be evil. Jazz bands were usually done by groups of black men, but on the covers, you'd see white people dancing. Interesting isn't it?

Elvis Presley, Ozzy Osbourne, Judas Priest, Little Richard, Marilyn Manson, in their respective timeframes, they have all been considered equally evil. Now, if you told someone that Little Richard was once considered evil music, they’d laugh. Yet that is what we have going on right now. The early soul musicians used sexual euphemisms to describe the acts. Nowadays we just say it outright. Let’s look through some popular controversies and see if we can get down to the bottom of it.

Homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals. There’s nothing really bad that’s been linked to homosexuality. “Wait,” some may say, “we have proof that it is.” (This portion is largely composed of arguments by Scott Bidstrup, himself a homosexual. Since I'm not a homosexual myself, I have very little perspective on the questions and concerns which they want addressed, and I thought he did the job rather well.)

The proof is from Bernard J. Klamecki, "Medical Perspective of the Homosexual Issue," in J. Isamu Yamamoto, ed., The Crisis of Homosexuality (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 116-17.

Some of this stuff is so weird I’m not sure how it’s even correlated. These are, “oral cavities, lungs, penis, prostate, bladder”. The only thing I can assume by oral cavity is the mouth, and the only thing I can think of is possible STD transference. He talks about oral sensations that can lead to bacterial infection, and this is true. However, we’ve made long strides in our learning of safe sex. The vagina is also home to several bacterial organisms as well. It's not going to stop me, however.

Did you know that bikes kill more children than handguns? So, do we ban bicycles or do we teach our children to wear safety equipment and ride safely? We know how to perform oral sex safely, without risk of infection. Only because of America’s trauma induced society where the idea of teaching our children instead of just hoping that by closing our eyes and ears, the problem will go away. Europe has long been teaching sex education in the classrooms, and they don’t have the problems with teen pregnancy that the American teenagers do. Have we not learned from our “War on Drugs”, our fallacious “prohibition” period, our banning of video games such as “Night Trap” and “Mortal Kombat”, which turned the two games into the highest selling games of that time, that restriction NEVER works!

Blowjobs are not particularly unique to the homosexual community, so I don’t see where this figures in. The lungs? What? How in the World do you get that? I can only assume this is one really big penis we’re talking about here. Possibly the introduction of semen into the lungs, but the only way that’s possible is if the person committing the oral sex act literally inhales the semen. Once again, this is not a particularly common thing, and it happens among heterosexual couples as well. Overall it just seems ridiculous. The only other thing he can be talking about is STD’s, and that’s not unique to the homosexual community, to the surprise of President Reagan. Same for prostate and bladder. What sexual practices he is referring to are completely new to me.

Next are the completely abstract, which is “vagina, uterus, pelvic area, brain, skin, blood, immune system, and other body systems”. Okay Dr., please explain to me how two gay men can harm the vagina and uterus? I’m interested in that one. The pelvic area? The SKIN? Again, the only possible thing I can assume he is referring to is STD’s, and these are not new or relatively unique to the gay community.

For the cracking and developing of fissuring, it can be reduced and almost eliminated with lubrication and protective condoms. Well, there it goes. With very common safe sex knowledge, we eliminate most of the problems. Unsafe sex, hetero or homosexual, is unsafe. Darn the luck for that argument.

Well, most people now accept the homosexual lifestyle as being acceptable social practice. But they refuse to let them get married. I figure if gay men and women want to go through a ton of agony and lose half of their stuff, why it’s America! They should be free to suffer like the rest of us. Seriously, let’s look at the arguments.

In 1989, when the proposal to legalize marriage between gays first was proposed in Denmark, the majority of the clergy were opposed. Now, after having seen the benefits to the partners and to society, they are overwhelmingly in favor, according to the surveys done then and now.

Interestingly, the The Baehr vs. Miike Court Decision ruled in favor of gay marriage. Here’s the arguments and why they fall flat.

Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? A few thousand years ago, a marriage was between one man and several wives. In some of the societies such as Japan, this was a practiced that has only recently been abolished, (recently in terms when compared to 2800 years).

There’s nothing stopping killers, child molesters, drug addicts, etc. from marrying. What strange moral code is being invoked here?

Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Further, even the wedding vows state nothing about having children. It's intristic that marriages don't have much of anything to do with procreation, it's a commitment between the love of two people, not whether or not they will have children.

Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? Children raised in same-sex orientated families have been shown to be as healthy, happy, and productive as their hetero-sexual counterparts.

Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Are we really going to take the advice from a book that tells us how to sell our brothers and daughters into slavery? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they perceive to be mandated a book. Further, we may take it as a bit of irony that America was found upon the laws set forth by the Native Americans, the Romans, and the Greeks. In other words, from the entire time Christianity was around until the time that America was found, not ONE Christian model society was able to be found upon which to base the new country.

(For those wondering about the Native American influence upon the government of the United States, consider the following:

In a report on the Huron's councils by Father Jean de Brebeuf during the summer of 1636, we find an admittence to the influence of the Native Americans. One of the most "remarkable things... is their great prudence and moderation of speech," and exactly this was what also had impressed Charlevoix, (D.E.Stannard, American Holocaust, p. 30)

An Iroquois orator named Canasatego, speaking for the League of now Six Nations of Iroquois peoples, who were tired of being confronted with so many colonial governments, each disagreeing with one another, proposed a Union to his white audience at the Treaty of Lancaster negotiations, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1744, on the fourth of July. (Which is an interesting synchronism).

Frustrated by the bickering commissioners of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Canasatego said:

One person who was very interested in what Canasatego said was Benjamin Franklin, who was thirty-eight at the time. Franklin used to publish transcripts of the conferences at which Canasatego and others Iroquois speakers shone, and thought about the Iroquois example (as did others at the time), and in 1751 wrote, (R.Wright, Stolen Continents. The Indian Story, p. 116):

Likewise, M.Weatherford, "Indian Givers", p. 137, notes that the characteristic elements of U.S. democracy have no equivalent in any other European democratic system. The caucus to name one example, is not Latin, but an Iroquois (precisely Algonquin) word. We also find that the eagle on the United States shield is the Iroquois Eagle, and the bundle of arrows in its grasp originally numbered not thirteen but five.)

Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. Thelemics, Satanists, and other minority religious groups also believe in the free Will of the practitioners. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history. But by the 19th century, humankind had realized the evils of that institution, and has since largely abolished it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?

Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989, (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays.

Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage.

Sodomy is illegal. Why is sodomy still illegal in many states? Because conservative religionists (at whose behest those laws were enacted) have blocked attempts to repeal them in every state where sodomy laws are still on the books. Indeed, those laws are very rarely enforced (though it does happen), yet there is very stiff opposition to their repeal. Why? Because they're a great tool for a homophobe to use as a basis of legalized discrimination. "Why should I rent an apartment to an unconvicted felon?" "I can't have an admitted criminal on my staff." "You're an unconvicted felon. I want you out of my restarurant and off my property." "I don't want you around my children. You're a criminal!" These are very real, actual arguments used in states where sodomy laws remain on the books. So, even though the moral crusades of the religionists using the power of the police have largely ended, the sodomy laws that made them possible remain, and likely will for as long as conservative religionists have their way. Indeed, some state legislatures have even tried to reenact sodomy statutes!

This is the greatest proof of the fact that we live in a Tyranny. Why, in the sake of all logic, does the United States Government honestly care about who I am sleeping with and how I do it? There’s not one logical argument that I’ve heard yet on this matter. The only thing I can conclude is an intrusion upon the decree that Church and state should be separate.

Heterosexuals would never allow such intrusion into their private sex lives, of course, but the homophobes among them see nothing wrong in using the power of the state to enforce their prejudices. State court systems, however, have begun to see the violation of the Fourth Amendment in such laws, and nearly as many state sodomy laws have been overturned as unconstitutional as have been repealed by state legislatures.

It’s an unnatural act. Well, I’d hate to blow the horn on this one, but the facts are in. Let’s look at them.

species	percent homosexual	percent bisexual	percent heterosexual
silver gulls (females)	10	11	79
black headed gulls (both sexes)	22	15	63
Japanese macaques (both sexes)	9	56	35
bonobo chimpanzees (both sexes)	0	100	0
galahs (both sexes)	44	11	44
source: Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 35

"Pseudo-heterosexuality." This is the favorite explanation of gay rights opponents. They claim that homosexuality in animals is the result of a shortage of, or unavailability of, heterosexual mates. There are a number of problems with this hypothesis.

First, in many species with skewed sex ratios, homosexuality is often seen more frequently in the sex which is in shorter supply rather than in the sex with a surplus of individuals.

Second, in some species where homosexual bonds form in a surplus sex, the other sex does not form homosexual bonds when it is in surplus. Humboldt penguins are an example. Males form homosexual bonds when there is a surplus of males, but females do not do so when they are in surplus.

Third, in other species, homosexual mountings occur with the same frequency regardless of whether there is a surplus, and sometimes even more frequently among balanced populations than skewed ones. Indeed, among yellow baboons, between 17% and 24% of younger individuals engage in same-sex mountings, when their sexes are roughly equal in their population, but among older yellow baboons, the males eventually outnumber the females by two-to-one, but homosexual mountings occur in only about 10% of such older individuals.

The "deprived of heterosexuality" argument. A variation on the pseudo-heterosexuality argument, this argument postulates that lower ranked males are deprived of the opportunity to mate and therefore turn to other males for sexual satisfaction.

The problem with this argument is that in many species in which harem-guarding occurs, there is no difference between higher ranking males and lower ranking ones as to the frequency of their homosexual mountings. This has been demonstrated in musk oxen, American bison, and New Zealand sea lions among others.

Among female homosexual pairs of Japanese macaques and Hanuman langurs engaging in homosexual behaviors, males approaching the pair may be threatened or even attacked.

When homosexual bonding does occur in the absence of opposite sex pairs, members of such a pair often resist attempts to 'convert' them back into heterosexual relationships. Even when deprived of their bonded partner, white-fronted Amazon parrots will not revert, and long-eared hedgehogs have refused heterosexual partners for as long as two and a half years, much of their natural lifetime. In the case of Stellar's sea eagles and female barn owls, both housed without opposite sexed members of their species, homosexual pair bonds among females were strong enough that when inseminated, they co-parented the chicks that resulted.

Homosexual bonds can be tight. Among male rhesus macaques, crab-eating macaques, bottlenosed dolphins, cheetahs and black-headed gulls with homosexual bonded partners, the members of the pair exhibited considerable distress at being separated from their partners. In all cases, the individuals ignored opposite sex partners offered them, and showed considerable joy and exhuberance at the reintroduction of their partners.

The "Mistaken Identity" hypothesis. This one seeks to explain animal homosexuality by claiming that the same sex partner is 'confused' and unable to identify a member of the opposite sex.

The problem here is that in some animals, the difference between sexes are obvious. Vastly different body color, shape or size are an obvious clue, yet in these species, homosexual bonds still form, even when body shape precludes easy homosexual mounting.

Another problem with this hypothesis is the fact that homosexual couples often engage in very different courtship rituals than do heterosexual couples. If it were a case of mistaken identity, how would this happen? In the case of bisexual animals, it has been seen that one set of courtship rituals are used by the same individual when courting homosexual versus heterosexual partners. This would not happen if the problem were a case of mistaken identity.

The "Gross Abnormalities of Behavior" hypothesis. The assumption here is that the behavior is a manifestation of a disease process.

Scientists looking into this hypothesis often examine animals for genital abnormalities, on the assumption that there is some kind of hormonal imbalance. The fact is that they rarely ever find abnormalities, never with enough frequency for it to be statistically meaningful. That's because of the mistaken assumption by some scientists that homosexuality is some sort of hermaphroditic condition. It's not, and that's why they never find what they're looking for.

If homosexuality were a manifestation of a disease process, why is homosexuality observed in roughly the same degree in captive populations versus wild populations, or in diverse wild populations? Whatever would be causing the disease cannot be equally present in all cases, both in the field and in the wild, so differences in occurrence should show up. But they rarely do. Why?

The "population control" hypothesis. The problem with this one is that field observations directly counter it. It has been observed in ochre-bellied flycatchers and ruffed grouse populations among others, that even when opposite sex partners, territories and breeding grounds are all available, some individuals still form homosexual bonds, and the ratio by which they do rarely differs even when the population is under stress

Critics of this research like to point out that if homosexuality actually existed in animals, it would have been observed in zoos. Well, it has been, and for as long as zoos have been kept. Zoo keepers who have observed this behavior historically ascribed it to the presence of stressors that exist in zoos that are not present in the wild. That was always the assumption. Such factors as same-sex isolation. Lack of stimulating activities. Unnatural living quarters. Unnatural diet. Then when field reports of similar behaviors started coming in, the existence of homosexuality in animals became to great to ignore. Today, animal behaviorists are unanimous in accepting the fact of animal homosexuality.

There's clearly a wide range of homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom. It's widespread, common, and impossible to deny or explain away any longer. Homosexuality is natural as green grass in summer, and it's high time we accepted that fact.

The birds do it. It's been described in 130 species of birds. The southeastern blueberry bees do it. Same sex pairs of animals kiss and caress each other with obvious sexual objectives. Male pairs and female pairs form long-lasting pair-bonds and reject, threaten, even fight off potential opposite sex partners when they are presented with them. Same sex partners engage in almost every conceivable means of sexual expression throughout the animal kingdom. Humans are just another form of animals. Just a lot more egotistical, and more naïve’ in my opinion. (Source: Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D.)

Another common argument from Christians is that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Yeah right. They say it stems from sexual identity confusion and rejection. Okay, let’s think logically. Everyone remember the little gay kid you knew when you were growing up? Almost everyone I’ve met, (thought not everyone) remembers a kid who was gay when he was young. You probably didn’t know it then, but something just wasn’t right. This wasn’t the result of rejection, he was merely gay. Dr. Jack Weinberg, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said in a public statement on October 6, 1977, that fears of "catching" homosexuality or being "recruited" at school or elsewhere are "... utterly without scientific foundation."

Stop and ask yourself -- when did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual? To be attracted to only persons of the opposite sex? Of course you never did. Can you pick and choose who excites you physically? Of course you can't. With the “male identity crisis”, that’s so b.s. as well. I’ve met biker’s who were homosexuals. These guy were meaner than a junkyard bulldog and they definitely didn’t have a mistaken identity crisis on whether they were male or female. The only criticism I've gotten on this methodology is that how can someone, "look at all the literature out there and pick out one?"

It's a really stupid objection. Perhaps the person wasn't noting that there are SEVERAL objections listed here. Obviously, the only way an objection can be found is by reviewing other literature. For example, Paul Jersild, a somewhat conservative Christian, (though with liberal leanings on his stance of the Catholic/Protestant church and on homosexuality), argues on p. 62 - 69 of "Making Moral Decisions" that homosexuality is a natural inclination. He examines the Old Testament and New Testament scriptures and concludes they are inconclusive on an idea of condemnation against homosexuality. He argues that since the greatest commandment of the Bible is to love your neighbor, after loving God, that love of someone who cannot change their natural inclination is more in line with what the Bible teaches than on what are ambiguous verses, particularly in their original language.

One of the things that Satanists inherently believe in is the equal treatment of all humans, unless they have done something to violate their rights as human citizens. Ironically, however, though employment forms are now stating that they do not discriminate based upon race, religion, sexual preference, etc., they do still discriminate against looks. Let's look at that in-depth.

The basic fact is that women who are attractive make a large and substantially greater amount of money than women who are unattractive. In fact, let me present you with some studies so you can see for yourself. In the words of Aristotle:

The first of these studies is how personality traits were assumed by looking at a picture, without knowing anything about the person. The study divided up the pictures based upon responses if the person thought they were good-looking, average, or homely. This was done by Dion, Berscheid, & Hatfield (1972). The conclusion was that people who were good looking in comparison to people who weren't were more:

The divisionary line between first-impressions didn't stop there. Good looking people also were predicted to have:

This doesn’t just carry-over onto the way that adults look. Dion did a study in 1972 on infants and small children. The result was that the bias begins right at the start. In infants and small children, by comparison of photo's, here's what was found. Attractive newborn infants were:

Female students majoring in Education were told by a report that a certain child, (attached with a photo), had been caught throwing stones at a cat. The photo had a picture of an attractive or unattractive child. The females said that the attractive child:

Quite predictably, the unattractive child was found to be the exact opposite in the opinions of the students:

So we know from the time we come out onto this Earth, our personal appearance greatly changes what people think of us before and even after having met us. Does this carry-over into financial terms? Absolutely.

Daniel Hamermesh is a professor at the University of Texas, who holds a doctorate in economics. He says that a 12 percent difference in lifetime earnings can be caused solely through personal appearance.

For purposes of this discussion, we’ll call this appearance discrimination. He first conducted a study on this in 1994, with a cooperative effort between UT and Michigan State University. The study concluded that what this culture identifies as “good looking” generally earn 12 percent more than those on the other end of the scale.

Because this is only one culture, the report could be deemed inconclusive. However, the study was then repeated throughout the United States, Canada, and Shanghai, China. The other extrinsic factors stayed the same, and adjusting for age, Hamermesh says the findings are consistent.

Good-looking people earn more over their lifetimes.
The impact of looks on income is less for women than it is with men.
In regards to marriage, good looking women tend to marry men with higher earning power and potential.

For the United States study, Hamermesh took the study group and put them into three groups based on looks. The total amount of people in the group was 3,500. The top 30 percent rated as the good-looking, the middle 55 were rated as looking average, while the bottom 15 were rated as being bad-looking. What he found out was that the top group received 5 percent more than the middle 55 percent, and that the bottom group of 15 percent earned 10 percent less than the middle group.

His findings showed that for a job that’s average earnings would be $30,000 per year, there would be a difference of about $3,600 per year between those in the top 30 percent and those in the bottom of 15 percent of looks. Over a 45-year working life, this amount translates into a difference of $150,000. Indeed, after studying a group of recent graduates from the school, a group of attorneys, Hamermesh found the same results.

Another group that agrees with Hamermesh in his assessment is the Social Issues Research Center in Oxford, United Kingdom. The SIRC is an independent nonprofit organization that conducts research on various social and lifestyle issues. It then moniters and assesses global sociocultural trends. SIRC released a recent report which states, “Attractive people have distinct advantages in our society…. Studies show attractive applicants have a better chance of getting jobs and receiving higher salaries. One U.S. study found that taller men earned around $600 per inch more than shorter executives.”

Another person noting these apparent discrepancies is Amy Hemp-Monagle, a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology at the University of Texas. She agrees with my previous assessment, that psychological literature suggests people are judged more favorably if they are more attractive, particularly with their first impressions. Because attractive people are judged favorably through first impressions, they are also perceived as having other positive attributes; such as above average intelligence, more fulfilling lives and job success.

According to Dr. Robert Ersek, president of the plastic surgery center “Personique”, he says that both men and women use cosmetic surgery to keep the jobs they have and to look for new jobs.

He makes a true remark about the way social conditions have always been. "You can't help but judge a book by its cover," Ersek says. He says he has had a face lift himself, as well as cosmetic surgery on his eyes, nose and brows.

According to him, men are most likely to request cosmetic eye surgery for business reasons. He says that for women, the face lift is the most often performed cosmetic surgery. He also adds that the type of surgery depends upon the age of the patient. He says that the face lift and brow lift are equally common with men and women over the age of 55.

According to Ersek, men most often request cosmetic eye surgery for business reasons, while for women the face lift is the most common procedure. He adds, however, the type of surgery depends on the age of the patient. Ersek says the face lift and brow lift are equally common with men and women over the age of 55.

Jeff Evins, president of Evins Personnel Consultants Inc., says that he sees the good-look bias as a more predominant feature in certain fields of employment. In particular, these are positions such as sales and company representatives.

He points to pharmaceutical sales as an example, where, he says, "Almost all the salespersons are attractive females in their mid-30s."

He further says that from his own experience, the bias isn’t as prevalent in support positions, but, that is because each company has its own hiring practices. He says that many companies hire a certain “look”, sometimes without even realizing they are doing so.

The looks of the employee also come into play in the interview process. The more attractive candidates know that they are attractive. This creates an aura where they are at ease and generally have a higher confidence level. The confidence is recognized by the interviewer, and can be a deciding factor in who gets the job.

Evins states that it may not be as simple as an attractive candidate being offered more money for a position. He says that the more attractive candidate will be offered more opportunities than their counterparts. Over time, the higher number of opportunities can equal greater earnings.

This is different than Hamermesh’s studies. He says that the bias can be seen “across the board”. Everyone from customer contact jobs to broader occupations in which there is little to no customer contact. There should be no reason that people should earn more or less based on personal appearance, (unless personal appearance is the sole basis for the job), religion, sex, race, etc.

The carry-over, however, doesn't just relate to what other people think and its economic impact. It also relates to how the people themselves act. Comparisons done against attractive people and unattractive people by Feingold in 1992 found that there were no differences between the two groups in the areas of:

From a purely psychological perspective, there didn't seem to be much difference between the two groups. However, there were marked differences in social interaction. Physically attractive people are:

The next portion of this is important for relativism. Are there actually certain key things which extend to all humanity? The answer to this was found by anthropologists Ford & Beach (1951), who examined 190 tribal societies to find out this answer:

Evidence that there was no Universal standards of beauty were reflected in the changes of the cultural ideal as a function of the historical time period.

In other words, body types were subject to change. However, there appears to at least be some basis for universal standards in facial features. For females, attractive facial features were

In addition, studies have shown that certain alignments between the jaw, the forehead, the nose, and the cheeks will cause someone to be physically attractive. If someone has this proper symmetrical "ratio", they will be considered handsome or pretty.

Part of the reason why some researches describe that people are attractive based on the ideal of similarity. According to demographic similarity, most best friends are similar in sex, race, age, and year in school. (Kandel, 1978) This, of course, doesn't apply directly to attractiveness, but it is a key point in remembering some other studies, such as one conducted by Byrne in 1971. The question asked was how does our perception of another person make us more or less attracted to them?

For the study, people filled out various questionnaires about their attitudes. They were then introduced to another person who had similar responses on his question form. The way it was done by Byrne was so that there was as little ambiguity was possible, the answers either made someone have a similar or dissimilar attitude to someone else. The end result was that people who had similar responses were more attracted to the other person than people with dissimilar answers.

The overall conclusion reached was that similar people found self-validation in another person through social comparison. This eliminated any kind of xenophobic fear.

We've found, so far, at least two areas which seem to have an underlying pricinple of absolutism to them, albeit even they inject a level of relativism, (for instance, how physically immature or mature facial characterists are attractive. Is there actually a direct level of correlation?) One other one was for innate preferences towards certain age groups. Bus did a study in 1989 of 37 cultures. The result was that women prefer slightly older men, while men prefer young women.

Another study done by Sprecher, Sullivan, and Hatfield was done in 1994. Though they didn't actually do the study themselves, they did perform an analysis of forty other studies on attractiveness. They reached a different conclusion than Byrne did. They found that we perceive people who are similar to us as intristically liking us. The more we think that someone likes us, the more apt we are to like them back.

One study which collaborated this was done by Curtis and Miller in 1986. The way it worked was that people were grouped with another person for five minutes, to get to know this person. Before the two people met, they were both told either that the other person liked them, or that they disliked them. However, no other information was revealed about the opposite person. The results were that people who thought the other person liked them were more honest, had a more pleasant tone of voice and attitude, were more agreeable, and liked each other a whole lot more.

Why is all of this important for morality? In order to fix a problem, you first have to know what the problem is. Ed Parker tells a story of a legal case where a man hires three men to fix a machine, (air conditioner I believe.) The first two men can't do it, the last man carefully listens to the machine, and taps it three times with a hammer. The machine starts to work properly again. The repairman sent the bill in to the owner, charging him a whopping five-hundred dollars. Outraged, the man took the bill up to court. When the judge asked the repairman why he charged so much, he replied, "Your honor, I charged the man five dollars for hitting the machine, and the rest for knowing where to hit the machine." The bill was upheld by the court. The point is that what is a seemingly simple solution can be a complex task if you do not know what the problem is in the first place.

Anton LaVey wrote a book called the "Compleat Witch". Most of the book is no-duh. However, having a knowledge of what makes humans think the way they do is a great advantage to being able to have a more successful life and career. Though we all like to believe in the fallacy that it's our intelligence that makes us get a job or not, there are too many external factors at play to be ignored.

Now, because Satanists are such equal opportunists, how do we feel about women serving combat functions? Equal rights? Well, it gets a little more complicated than that. The fact is that males have a hard time dealing with female death, and if we incorporate females into the military, other military units may choose to do so as well. This will create a moral conundrum for the males in the combat related areas. Quite simply, as David Grossman shows, it's hard enough to get men to kill other men, to get men to kill females is a much harder problem.

Also, when you go out in the field, you can be out there for sixth months straight without any human contact outside the unit. Males are going to probably have a hard time repressing sexual urges, and add that to the fact that there are less females than males in the area, it will lead to internal strife. There’s also considerations for rape and pregnancy. The simple fact is that even with all this, we’re not prepared to deal with females in body bags coming back from foreign countries.

A common question to Satanists is, “how do you guys feel about abortion? The “Satanic Bible” says that all life is sacred. But, at the same time, you hold individual freedom. So, how do you rule on this?” Well, the question isn’t a very hard one for us. First, let's look through all the arguments and see what we actually arive at. Before I do go into detail of this argument, I should stress that I am not making a full argument pro and con for it. This is, at best, a very abbreviated argument. The first point I will point out is the useless rhetoric involved in this debate. That being "pro-life" and "pro-choice". It's a pointless rhetoric because they are trying to imply either your for life or for choice, it's tautological.

There's another reason for this as well. There's a difference between immoral actions and illegal actions. That is to say that someone can find abortion to be morally wrong, but that they may not find it to be illegal. Examples of such things would be cheating on the spouse, (unless you are a Satanist, and even then, it still can be, depending on whether you and the spouse agreed to it), and lying. Both are generally considered immoral, but not illegal.

Right to privacy.
Right to ownership of one’s own body. Is ownership a perspicuous category?
Right to equal treatment. Men can’t get pregnant.
Right to self-determination.

One reason which strikes a chord with women is the last one. The basic fact is that anti-abortion is traditionally an institute which is against women. It was always used as a means of controlling women. For example, feminists pointed out that it's very hard to maintain a good job when pregnant, and even the most fool-proof of contraceptives didn't always work. Thus, a baby endangered a woman's life, sociologically and financially, and should thus be legal. Anti-abortion is also rooted in racist ideas. Dr.'s and sociologists know that areas with the highest population spawning are areas that are primarily agrarian societies. Children are the cheapest form of labor. Nomadic lifestyles don't go well with children because they can't keep up with the tribes movement. To solve this problem, castration and abortion were used, as a woman could only hold onto her stuff and one child at most, so the average age of childhood differences was about 4 years apart.

In technological societies, the same problem pops up, only that children are a threat to the finances of the parent. Until children are at about the age of 25, and usually not until their 30's, are they gaining great financial success, and most not even then. Thus, children are a strain on the resources of the parent. Whites thus had very few children, while African-Americans, Italians, Irish, and other minorities had lots of children, because they worked labor-intensive, rather than technologically intensive jobs. The conclusion of doctors, (or rather, a few racist doctors), was that abortion should be illegal so that the white population wasn't destroyed. Embarrassing that the history of anti-abortion isn't nearly as altruistic as the proponents of it make it seem, isn't it?

However, appealing to the history of something doesn't make it right or wrong, but it is an interesting fact to keep in mind when you start looking at who is opposing abortion, what their money situations are, and what race they are.

I'd also like to address some issues that irk me with anti-abortionists. I think it is best put forth in the book "The Moral Question of Abortion", by Dr. Stephen Schwarz, which I will address at length. That being that:

Why the hell does this mean anything to me? A stillborn child LOOKS like a small child, but that hardly means I could draw any conclusions to the feasibility of it having human rights. Likewise, if I could show that an unborn ape looks very close to a human baby, are we going to argue that it is entitled to the same rights as a human? On the flip side of that, let's say children born with defects, but not dead. If we can argue that because it doesn't look like a small child, (born with no arms, missing one arm, etc.), does that make abortion permissible? This is a typical emotional plea-bargaining, but it really doesn't mean anything. Marquis, (book discussed below), notes this as objectional because it relates an embryo to the level of cancer cells. They look human, but that hardly qualifies them for human rights.

Second, cell biologist Charles Gardner argues against the "we are all fetuses" argument. The argument states that we are all born with a sort of built-in genetic code programming, which will make us this special "God" package. It's not really true. "There is no program to specify the fate of each cell. Each stage brings new information, information that will change as the body pattern changes. With this layering of chance event upon chance event, the embryo gradually evolves its form." The ovum is thus not "a pre-packaged human being." That is also to say that there are stages to our "becoming a person", not a pre-packaged case.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, (The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality, p. 150), adds this point:

This is very interesting to me. Note here that a child is now at about a 60% chance of dying of natural causes outside of abortion. Outside of that, the fact is that whenever we do a liver transplant, the same thing happens. The liver becomes a part of the body, but it is not a part of the body before that happens. After the initial assault, no more immunological defenses occur because the body accepts the baby as a part of itself. I don't know any doctors who would say that the liver is ergo not part of a person's body because the initial response was to expell it. Also, he dehumanizes the baby. If the baby is not a part of a woman's body, and is a foreign agent, that means that he has effectively equated the baby with as synonymous with a virus! Rather hard to make a naturalistic argument against abortion when the first thing the immune system does is try to kill it isn't it? Arguing that we should let it live because it survived the process of natural selection would be like saying we should get rid of the Zinc tablets which help our body fight off the common cold because the cold survived the initial defense system. As they say, "The devil's in the details." Or perhaps, Bernard's case might be, "My minds made up, don't let the details bother me."

Sure there is. When someone goes into a deep coma, they are nonpersonal. The only part of their brain that's operating is located in the very back and bottom of the brain, regulating their heartbeat, their breathing, etc., but they lack any essential components of humanity. The ability to feel emotions, to love, to cry, to do anything. In essense, they are a shell that can breath. My psychology teacher told me the story of one girl he taught who overdosed on pain pills and alcohol. Her whole brain, save for the back portion, shut down for seven years before she died. I would, in all good conscience, have a hard time labeling her as a person. Human, perhaps, but a person, an identity, or something possessing a level of autonomy, no. (Note: Deep coma's and temporary unconsciousness such as getting knocked out or going to sleep are completely different things).

Perhaps a better example? How about Vietnam vets who were shot in the head? Some of them went into deep-coma's which they could biologically NEVER get out of. Using his line of argument, this looks human, (more human than miniature babies), it was once a person, and hence if it cannot go from non-personal to personal, it cannot go from personal to non-personal. Therefore, on his line of objections, it should be immoral to pull the plug. What line of objection can he possibly argue to counter this? Cost? Same thing that is used by pro-abortionists, women who do not have the financial capabilities to support a child.

Apparently though, he would argue that it is morally wrong to kill a person who is in a coma:

Not really to me. I would ask and beg for someone to kill me. Electricute me, throw me off a building, shoot me, burn me, hang me, do something, but if I'm going to have to be so dependant that I can't talk, move, eat, drink, urinate, deficate, etc. without someone helping me, (remember, this analogy is saying that you are as dependant as a baby in the womb), can there honestly be an argument for the continuation of life? (Technically, I wouldn't call that "living", that's an extended state of existence). A baby does NOT possess the same abilities that paralyzed people do. Someone paralyzed and in a coma is about the right level of dependancy. People who are just paralyzed still value their own lives, unborn babies do not have the ability to even value their life.

I think his argument starts getting more and more implausible when he starts quoting Steven L. Ross who says that:

Of course, this is a closed-theory. If I were to ask him for supporting documents like a list of women who had an abortion and were asked, "I can take this fetus out of you and raise him without you", and they said, "Nope, kill that little bastard", he'd fumble around, mumble some words about the implausibility of my request, then hurridly shuffle off into the corner to cry. This is just an emotional plea-bargain, and it's shameful that someone can pretend to be a non-biased examiner and then uncritically reference garbage like this.

For a reply, look under "Myth 1: Something is human at the time of conception" below. This is basically along the same lines as Marquis. It must be obvious to him how weak this argument really is because his footnote says that:

In support of the argument, this is the best he can offer. I'm wondering what branch of theism he is to even try this argument. Not one religion in the World tells us that babies go to hell. All religions which believe in an afterlife say it is much more glorious than this one. Since all of these afterlifes entail that there's nothing bad, hence, no remorse, this objection fails. Also since he can't prove the existence of an afterlife, it's just showing how shoddy he's getting in what he's referencing. (Not to mention the debateable point of heaven being "bliss", ergo meaning that no form of pain, repentence, or guilt is allowed.)

His next objection is the ability to feel pain. His first three chapters have obviously been set-up for an emotional plea. There are those of us who are familiar with political speeches. They follow a very distinctive pattern, those being, "Yes/maybe yes/no". Here's how it works. You get a politician to say, "Are you tired of new taxes?" The overwhelming response will be "yes", of course. Then he'll say, "Do you know that the competitor plans on introducing crippling new taxes to our community?" This is a maybe yes statement. It might or might not be true. The final portion of this is the "No" statement, which is, "Vote for me and I'll make sure there are no new taxes!" Yeah right.

The same strategy is effectively being employed here. Remember that moral conundrums occur whenever there are choices between good and good, not good and bad. Thus issues such as women who have mutilated themselves to have abortions, women's rights, the right of the living over the right of the could-be living, the exception for rape or incest, etc., are not addressed.

Following this though, he fails to establish the difference between responses and pain sensation. He cites Vincent J.Collins, M.D., Steven R Zielinski, M.D., and Thomas J. Marzen, Esq., "Fetal Pain and Abortion: The Medical Evidence".

In other words, before we have a brain, we can feel pain. He is acknowledging a very important point, that pain is mostly psychological rather than physiological though. To back this up, most people would cite P. Lubeskind, "Psychology & Physiology of Pain," Amer. Review Psychology, vol. 28, 1977, p. 42:

Of course, without a brain to process this, we're essentially discussing an organic response rather than actual pain. Bacteria's illicit responses to external stimulation, but it won't stop me from using soap. (I know, what a horrible analogy, dehumanizing those poor globs of reproductive tissue with the capability of becoming living adults.) However, this is also known as "Stacking the Deck". What he's referencing are easy to get your hands on, it came out after President Reagan said that abortion was a long and painful process. (Check the dates on the references).

This caused a panel of judges and medical technicians to fire back on both sides. Of course, this is a relative topic. A procedure which kills a fetus in a matter of hours as opposed to dying of cancer would make one scratch the head over which is the "long and painful" form of death. (Cancer is one of the leading causes of natural death).

To understand the debate, you must understand the distinction between organic pain and psychological pain, and the problem with detecting pain.

Organic pain is the body's response to some kind of attack, such as a burn or a bang. More technically, organic pain is a physiological or neurological response to noxious (harmful or damaging) stimuli. Psychological pain is more complex: If you can imagine harmful or unpleasant sensations, sense them coming, or remember them, that's psychological pain. Equally important is not just being able to have a stimulation to a stimuli, but being able to psychologically register that pain. For instance, you may recall the scene from the last of the "Aliens" movie where a mechanic who was paralyzed gets a knife stuck in his leg by a mercenary, and doesn't feel it. The body produced all the elements of a noxious stimuli, but he never registered any pain. (You could do it to Christopher Reeve and he wouldn't feel it, which is what actually happens in a movie he stars in where he kills his wife and brother.) Another example we have all heard about is where someone gets an arm or a leg chopped off and feels absolutely no pain whatsoever. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with the neurological system, it is fully registering what we would call "physiological pain", however, the brain is not responding to these signals. You've probably also heard medical stories where the patient realizes something is wrong and then feels the pain.

Likewise, children are born who cannot mentally "feel" pain, regardless of the fact that their body has neurological sensors to the pain. They generally don't live very long, but the point being that even fully grown adults and children, though reproducing all the neurological elements of noxious stimulation, still don't feel pain.

The main relevant question here is whether or not the subject can actually experience noxious stimuli. For example, a chicken with its head cut off may run around for awhile, but it's missing some of the necessary structures to feel pain.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom set out to deal with this topic as sensitively yet objectionally as possible. Professor Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, author of the working group's report, says that "little sensory input" reaches the brain of the developing fetus before 26 weeks. "Therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain."

Does reaction to stimuli mean that it is sentient? Single-celled organisms will react to a phagocyte if they are placed near each other, yet seperated. The organism will grow to ten times its normal length, thus making it something the phagocyte can't digest. No one argues that this means amoebas and protozoans are capable of experiencing pain. This argument is actually an antique from 18th century psychology, before we figured out that the nervous system, and not the brain, is what causes unconscious reflexes to stimuli. The original theory was that there was the "reactive mind", and the "complex mind". This was disproved by a scientist who discovered if he hooked up electricity through a frog's spinal cord to the leg, and put a shock of electricity, the leg would start violently kicking. However, if he removed the spinal cord and attempted the same experiment, nothing happened. Now, do we argue that the kicking of the leg, a response to stimuli, is thus a measurement for the frog's right to live, though the brain is clearly not there?

The conclusion of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is that the administration of painkillers should be considered before an abortion for any fetus which is 24 or more weeks since conception. This would give a 2 week safety factor in case the date of conception is incorrectly calculated.

Professor Glover of Queen Chalotte's and Chelsea Hospital in London, UK, believes that there is a possibility that a fetus aged 18 weeks can feel pain. On 2000-AUG, she recommended that late pregnancy terminations be done under anesthetic. She suspects that the fetus would not respond to sensations in the same way as newborns. It is unlikely to produce the feelings of anxiety that people have. She believes that the fetus should be given the benefit of the doubt, and I agree with her.

Anti-abortionists clapped their hands over this find. However, there were still some problems. Ann Furedi, director of communications for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the UK's largest independent provider of abortions, said no new evidence had been presented to suggest the fetus could feel pain.

Recent statistics show that of the 177,225 abortions performed in Britain during a recent year, 92 (0.05%) occurred after 24 weeks. This is important because of a statement by Dr. Susan Dudley, and because of other people. Susan stated that fetal pain is a complex issue. However, in the event that a infant can experience pain after week 20:

Effectively, the argument is a two-fold stacking of the deck, and emotional appeal. However, he refutes himself when he says:

Effectively, he tells us that sensitivity to pain cannot be used as a meaning of value on life. So why even bother to bring it up? The reason is that mothers are deeply concerned with the suffering of their potential child, (which rejects the notion that they just want to kill them). Mothers who were told their fetus might experience pain were much more reluctant to abortion. What he wanted to do was reinforce his position that abortion shouldn't be performed. If he can't do it by convincing you that a fetus is a human, emotional plea's will suffice. Is this morally and intellectually honest? I'll let you decide.

He next goes on to argue about sentience, and why it is ineffective to be against abortion. To start off with, he quotes Werner:

I think this is a wrongful statement. A person is someone who has a PERSONA, a PERSONALITY, etc. Hence the reason why apes are treated different than insects, which are treated differently than dogs. If a frog ever developed bicameral consciousness and started talking to me, I'd treat that frog a lot different. I definitely wouldn't eat frog legs in front of him. In effect, it won't make the frog human, but he will become a person. This is the same line of reasoning that people apply to their favorite pets.

A fallacy of his own making is next exposed. Okay, remember that he goes into length describing the stages of human development, and even showing pictures to prove that a fetus looks like a human. There must have been some reason for this, at least the assumption would seem plausible right? Wrong.

Again, why waste a chapter of a book talking about something that is "not... important"? The reason is that this is another large determining factor in whether or not a woman will have an abortion. Telling her how much the baby looks like a human will cause her to have remorseful feelings about the abortion. Early on, he discusses how women who have abortions feel remorseful, (wonder if he'd include women who didn't have an abortion and feel remorseful? Would the mother of Jeffrey Dohmer please step forward...) Another stacking of the deck, the Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex found that:

A good observer may point out that "the majority" and "all of them" are not the same thing. However, just as settlers made the natives feel so guilty they killed themselves, and conservative Christians convince people that they should feel guilty for being born, so does one convince someone else to feel morally guilty. After all, that's the whole point of his book, and all these arguments he builds up a chapter on then dismisses in two paragraphs!

Interestingly, he betrays his lack of biological knowledge by not taking advantage of Nathanson, who has thus far been one of his most frequent citations. Nathanson maintains that implantation is when a fetus is wrong to be aborted. The reason why is simple. Prior to this, all babies are lost through the menstrual cycle. That makes billions of women inadvertant killers. Of course, that would mean switching the argument to a biological one, (typically the domain of pro-abortionists), and not the realm of morality, (which is the realm of anti-abortionists.) In a purely biological perspective, all the emotional appeals thus far noted, (there's plenty more), are even more worthless. I would offer a more lengthy review of it, but I think the point has been made. Like most anti-abortion literature, it's designed to evoke emotions more than anything else. Now let's look at the larger points he makes and learn why they fail.

Fact: Anyone who claims this is a biologically inept twit. According to the University of California, San Franscisco: "In nature, 50% of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses."