According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "positivism" is
a philosophical system [...] recognizing only observable phenomena and empirically verifiable scientific facts and laws, and rejecting inquiry into ultimate causes or origins as belonging to outmoded metaphysical or theological stages of thought.
Unfortunately, this philosophy forms the basis of much of modern science which, through the success of technology, has greatly influenced the world-view of our society at large. We no longer think that humans have souls more special and distinguished than those of animals; and because we no longer care about questions like "From where do we come?" and "To where are we heading?," we erroneously consider ourselves nothing more than animals.
But we are more than animals. We have intellects; we have minds; therefore, we have souls. A soul is, after all:
The principle of thought and action in man, commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body; the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical. (OED)
From where do our souls originate? Who animates (anima = "soul") us? The matter that makes up our bodies? No. Matter is not solely responsible. Why? Science, through the successful theory of the Big Bang, shows that the universe has a beginning. This means that something outside physical matter, time, and space is responsible for their existence. Since positivism denies anything metaphysical (i.e., "beyond physics") or theological (i.e., the study of God), we are masochistically inflicting a limitation on our human capabilities to know. When are intellects are limited, what differentiates us from mere animals—what makes us human—disappears, too. And what results?
We are net producers in an economy, not net consumers as proponents of the overpopulation myth like Obama's neo-Malthusian science "czar" John Holdren think. The fewer people there are in the world, the better? E.g., fewer scientists to invent new technologies, fewer doctors to treat patients, fewer farmers to grow crops, fewer economists to distribute resources more justly, fewer people in the workforce, fewer producers in the economy, fewer people to help the elderly, a shrinking economy, etc. How is this better? How is preventing human life through contraception and abortion better? Think of humans' potential:
This movie, by astronauts Neil Armstrong et al., shows what amazing things are possible due to people, not just our technological and scientific "laurels." Science and technology are a means to an end, but ultimately people are our hope. They are the ones, not science in itself, who are advancing our knowledge and applying their God-given intellects to such amazing feats that would make 14 billion people on earth no problem. Even a trillion people. Just imagine the potential of a group of a trillion people. In a group that size, there would definitely be enough scientists, e.g., to invent technologies to conquer the solar system and even the Milky Way Galaxy!
Instead, we justify this:
For more proof elective abortion is murder, click here.