Category Archives: Nonfeminism

We Kill the Weak

My recent blog post War on Children produced a conversation. Here is an excerpt from one of the commenters:

“There is no “human being” until full bilateral synchronization [of the brain]. Please understand that. Please get that straight in your head. A human being can die. Before week 28 nothing can “die.” Period. So, if you want to use language like “kill” and “murder” then you must tell me, and everyone reading this, how you can kill something that cannot die…”

The author of this position then asked repeatedly, “Tell me, how can you kill something that cannot die?” as his trump.

So the arguments are:

A fetus is not alive until 28 weeks gestational age. (It is not a human being either?)

Before “brain synchronization”, it is not living, therefore it is not something which can die.

That baby in your belly moved because it was nothing more than “electrical impulses firing, causing movement… like firing shocks through a [dead] frog’s leg.”

This blogger equated death (the cessation of life in a previously living being) with the early stages of human development. No distinction was recognized even though a fetus meets every criteria for life and humanity. Blogger also would not define the terms of the discussion, particularly regarding whether the critical question was the fetus’ life/non-life, humanity/non-humanity, or sentience/ non-sentience.

Incomplete brain development = not living yet OR not human yet = we can dispose of it and it’s a morally neutral act.

20-weeks-human-fetus3 20 week fetus

What is this position really? What are all positions which pinpoint some arbitrary criteria which allows functional human adults to excuse the termination of millions of unborn human beings?

It is discrimination imposed upon some human beings based on their incomplete development.  It is a defense of legal termination based on inability, temporary handicap, or the incomplete growth process.

It is disqualifying still-developing children for life, even though if they were left to grow (not killed), they would become fully able.

Making termination of human fetuses legal up to a certain point in their development is exactly this.

In other words, we are killing the defenseless because they are defenseless.

Abortion culture sometimes uses pre-viability as a boundary for guilt-free termination A moving goalpost if there ever was one; and since it moves as science advances, it cannot have ever been an ethically-based position.

Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is “viable.” ~ Slate

But why was viability ever the benchmark anyway?

While the unborn are weakest, while they are the most defenseless and vulnerable, while they need the most nurture…that is when we allow them to be eliminated. This is the opposite of Christian ethics, or even human ethics.

We are meant to protect most exactly those who need protection most.

In God’s design, babies are helpless for at least one good reason. Their dependency is supposed to elicit an instinctual response in adults, particularly females and more particularly mothers…for protectiveness and for the desire to nurture. It’s built into us.

We were designed to be the protectors of those helpless lives. Carrying those tiny lives within our bodies is supposed elicit obvious and intuitive impulses to protect. This is not altruism; it is not extraordinary but natural.

What we see now is a whole culture of  females denying those impulses to nurture, calling those impulses oppressive and disturbed. In favor of lateral peer dependence, they will purposely make themselves cool calculators who are just fine with ending the lives of the weakest of human beings.

Our culture has chosen a position which favors self-serving and arbitrary criteria for inclusion, and death as the default for those who fail to qualify. We kill the weak.

 

 

 

 

 

Insufficient

The value system offered to women by Planned Parenthood and ideological Feminism is insufficient to meet the demands of the typical life of any female.

Perhaps the most illustrative example: it is normal for women for a significant span of their lifetimes to be vulnerable to becoming pregnant. Feminism requires that that normal–the possibility of becoming pregnant from engaging in sex– be erased in the pursuit of being equal to men. And that appears to mean the same as men.

If I do become pregnant, in most of the United States, I have the legal freedom and the societal approval to walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and pay them to end the life of my child, no questions asked, at any time during my pregnancy.

Feminist ideology tells me that I must have that right or else I am not free, I am not a person possessing full rights, I am not equal to men. I am less than a man if I cannot kill my child. I am less than a man if I cannot erase my fertility. I am less than a man if I must prioritize childcare over an uninterrupted career.

In other words, Feminism does not respect my intrinsic value as a woman. As a human being, I am less than some others.

Feminism does not value the things that make me a woman. Feminism rejects my feminine nature in favor of acquiring a male nature. It marginalizes what makes a woman a woman. Feminism tells me that, as a woman, I am inadequate and insufficient.

Here’s a quote I happened upon today lifted from a Facebook comment. There are many like it:

“With access to birth control ( which is under assault), women now have the power and autonomy. We can decide for ourselves what is right for us. Without access to reproductive services , that autonomy and power will cease. Vote.”

She said that without birth control, by which they mean abortion-on-demand, I cannot exercise my potential, possess autonomy, or conceive of myself as a person with power.

If somebody might have to die in order for me to be a full human being…something is very wrong with the options my culture is offering me. If we must dangle death over the lives of our potential children in order to be truly equal to men…I would say that we are not prepared by Feminism for the realities of life, and that Feminism does not believe I am equal to a man.

The truth is I am equal to a man, I am as valuable as a man, whether or not I am fertile or infertile, whether or not I am pregnant or not pregnant, whether or not I have several children or no children; whether or not I must interrupt my career to have a baby, whether or not I choose to be a full-time stay-at-home parent for awhile. Or forever.

Can we find solutions to challenging circumstances which don’t include killing innocent people? What do you think?

My validity as a person does not depend on robbing another person of her validity. My personhood does not depend on erasing someone else’s personhood. I can be who I am, confident of my worth, without robbing someone else of her worth. To be of value, must I rob another person of her life?

Some Persons Have No Rights

Let’s speak clearly.

There are people who believe that some persons do not have rights. They advocate for public policy which denies Constitutional rights to some persons. Those persons‘  unrecognized rights extend even to their right to live.

How on earth did they gain any kind of high moral ground?

I keep a blog because I want to present thoughts which I don’t see everywhere. I’ve been hitting the institution of abortion-on-demand pretty regularly for the last few months over many posts. Here’s a list of many of my points so far:

The unborn are a disenfranchised, legally unprotected group of human beings and are vulnerable to legal termination. They need spokesmen and defenders.

The legal termination of millions of the unborn is morally equivalent to any other selective killing of a group of human beings who share some characteristic, therefore it is a kind of genocide.

Our descendants may look back on us with disgust and shame for our willingness to commit mass extermination of the unborn (who would have numbered among those same descendants). In history we may be reduced to one identifier: Abortionists.

We are not conducting a “war on women” but in exactly the same sense we are conducting a war on children, ie. unborn babies.

Contrary to the pro-choice line that conservatives and particularly religious pro-lifers want control over women’s choices, it is the pro-abortion culture which is exploiting women:

First, by creating a dishonest narrative in which all women are victims of non-choice and male-oriented oppression (fabricating a need for female rescue); second, by pitting the pregnant woman and her unborn child against one another as victimized and parasite (marking the scapegoat for elimination);  then by insisting that corporations like Planned Parenthood are necessary for the “health” and self-determination of women (reaping the monetary and political benefits of the conflict they created).

Gender-selective abortion of female fetuses is wildly popular in some parts of the globe. Where are the feminist objections?

The worst thing modern women have added to their collection of beliefs is that human life is relatively valuable; that some lives are priceless while others are expendable.

The second worst thing women believe is that each woman’s life ought to be about what makes her happy, and that all other considerations are secondary.

Both of those beliefs are destructive and self-defeating.

Defenders of legalized abortion are unwilling to call legalized abortion morally wrong, but they are also unable to explain what is objectively wrong with genocide. At the same time some of them equate non-veganism with genocide.

Liberal men expounding with assurance on the ease, health and rightness of abortion is outrageously presumptuous.

Likewise the sight of pro-abortion women trying to convince the world that abortion is an easy and “cool” experience is cruelly misleading.

According to law, any woman may abort her child for any subjective reason and that reason is totally personal and no one else’s business. What other life or death decisions in our society are totally protected from objective judgment?

Ironically, we have arrived here because we want to be thought of as compassionate people and we want to be on the right side of history

Why does a woman cling to an ideology that requires her to believe that she must conceive of herself as oppressed if her right to end another person’s life is infringed in any way?

It’s time to re-examine this peculiar ideological house of cards which balances all of our rights as women upon one tenet: the right to destroy our own offspring.

“Never in the history of mankind has the denial of full human status to a subset of the human race meant anything good. It has always meant exploitation and death.” This is what we have done to pre-born human beings.

Are we even able to recognize exploitation when we see it? Institutionalized abortion is exploitation. Planned Parenthood exploits babies, and Planned Parenthood exploits women. Planned Parenthood objectifies children. Planned Parenthood objectifies women.

In other words,Planned Parenthood does to wome what feminism asserts that men and patriarchy does to women: it victimizes them.

If somebody might have to die in order for me to exercise my full potential…something is very wrong with that paradigm.

Women and particularly mothers were designed with built-in tendencies to protect and nurture the helpless unborn, but our culture of feminism has successfully trained us against our nature.

The worst thought by far that women have embraced is this: Human value is relative, not intrinsic, not eternal, not immeasurable. That the value of a given human being is dependent on a variety of situations and circumstances. Fundamentally, we need women to be the protectors of helpless human life.

It’s too sad to contemplate the role we were meant to play as guardians of life, versus the one we have actually embraced.

This list of points is not exhaustive and you can read the posts from which they come in my “Life” category. Also I have many posts in the drafts pipeline about the pernicious results of the abortion culture.

War on Children

War on women? I do not know how any human being could be more privileged or more powerful than a first-world modern woman.
We have bestowed upon every woman of childbearing age an unquestionable right to end the lives of her own children in utero totally without consequence.

It is a war on our children.

I am not making this up. I arrived at my mom’s house (she needs company 24/7 now) to relieve my sister. She was watching Judgment at Nuremberg on TV. When it was over I happened to turn directly to C-Span and there was Cecile Richards testifying in front of congress about Planned Parenthood funding. If you don’t see the serendipity, let me explain.

Judgment at Nuremberg spends time bandying about some questions, like: Were these crimes standard operating procedure in times of war? Weren’t all sides guilty of similar things? Or were these war crimes or crimes against humanity, crimes against civilization? How could genocide happen in this civilized place? Who was really responsible?

Wouldn’t it be best to let it go and move on?

The film’s poignant verdict: when we decide to dehumanize a single person, we have made a decision to evaluate the relative worth of all human beings from then on. We are capable of excusing any crime against any human being. In our willingness to exploit one person, we are on the inevitable, one way road to oppression by the powerful upon the socially powerless. Very often the final result is genocide.

We have discarded any objective basis for true justice. We have lost who we are.

We have condemned ourselves; we have lost our humanity.

A nation of people who were once civilized and great had descended into a nation of accomplices to genocide, of relative justice, of inhumanity to man.

Explicit in that message is that everyday Germans had failed to take responsibility for what had been happening in their country. They had looked the other way. There was nothing they could do. They didn’t know.

What did I see on C-Span? The well-compensated President of Planned Parenthood unable to answer a single question. She didn’t know anything about anything. She’d have to ask her hundreds of staff. She was not responsible for anything.
Passing the responsibility, pleading the incompetence of being a small cog in the machine, pleading ignorance: all these were the most popular pleas of those tried at Nuremberg.

There are only two choices here: either this President of the organization came to the hearing unprepared, or she was unwilling to answer truthfully because she would implicate herself. If abortion is such a boon to womankind, why didn’t she stand up proudly for exactly what she does?

I also saw, and see, a culture which was willing to look the other way, and to comfort itself with euphemisms and rationalizations.

(Then she pulled the girl card: “You’ve made me testify for 5 1/2 hours now, and I can’t answer any more!” *sniff sniff* Hooray for feminism.)

By the way, let’s remember we were only deciding if they still get federal funding, not whether they were going to be forcibly shut down. Shame on us that shutdown isn’t even an option.

She is the head of an organization which has been implicated in:
infanticide,
mutilation of pre-born infants living and dead,

quantifying and cataloging human body parts for the purposes of selling them
and profiting from their sale by the billions,

altering surgical procedures on unsuspecting clients in order to minimize the damage to saleable body parts,

ginning up more business by creating a culture of death, self-orientation, and free and easy sex promoted to children,

while destroying the trust and supportive relationships which ought to exist between young people and their parents. (Check out some of their educational materials.)

There is plain evidence now, for anyone who wants to look, that they do all of this.

On Facebook, I saw my pro-choice friends’ objections: “That’s absurd! The videos are doctored. The charges are ridiculous!”

Then aren’t you saying that the charges are objectionable?

If true, would we abandon our support of PP? My guess is no.

If we’re unwilling to be moved by the slaughter, undeniably true, of innocent infants;
of a huge corporation profiting by the billions from their deaths;
by the danger this corporation exposes women to in order to maximize their profit;
to lies, to divisive propaganda,
to immorality, to injustice, to exploitation…
then what does matter?

I see in our culture the same willingness to look the other way as there was in Germany of the 30’s and 40’s, the same willingness to pass the responsibility…to shrug and to say, what can I do about it anyway?

To excuse it by rationalizing away the value of human lives. To tend to our own interests while human beings are being slaughtered right down the street.

The trains full of the doomed passed through their towns and villages, but at least they hid their death camps deep in the forests. Our killing mills are sitting right on our main streets, and we’re downright proud of them.

Girls Just Want to Be Born

How does the pro-abort culture rationalize this form of gender-based violence?

One answer in the U.S. is first-world blindness to practices like this which are widespread in non-first world places. Elitism is elitism after all.

“Opposition to pro-girl legislation reveals blatant hypocrisy—pro-abortion organizations who profess they act on behalf of women and girls but support the act of sex-selection abortion whose only purpose is to end the life of a girl. Abortion is so sacrosanct to the abortion movement that it is willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of girls on the altar of ‘choice.'”

 

The global pro-life movement will continue to speak out and defend the girl child. We must work to oppose all acts of gender based violence, protect women’s and girls’ lives, and seek consistent non-discriminatory life-affirming laws and policies.

Source: Girls Just Want to Be Born

Disorganized Comments on Recent Posts

Some of my thoughts on my recent posts and the conversations which followed. Forgive me if I jump around.

My posts What’s Wrong with Genocide? and  Why Do You Champion Genocide?  were written to suggest what I believe: that the killing of millions of people by the Nazis is morally equivalent to the termination of millions of pre-born infants. The killing of millions of people equals the killing of millions of people.

Is one selective death imposed upon another person morally different from another? Are there ethically valid reasons which justify one but not the other?

Are justifications based on age and dependency more valid than justifications based on ethnic or political characteristics, especially since the terminations are imposed upon both groups of people?

***********************************************************

Should men offer opinions on abortion?

I’m no feminist but I am down with this one item of the sisterhood: I do think that it is utter presumption for men, any men, to promote the efficacy, ease and health of having an abortion. It’s arrogance and ignorance. You down-with-the-struggle feminist men need to respect that carrying a child, labor and delivery, or terminating a pregnancy are things about which you understand not one thing.

Likewise recovery from any of these.

You promote abortion because you imagine it’s a panacea which allows a woman to get back to her life just the way it was before the inconvenient hiccup. That works great for you. But recovery from an abortion can be long, protracted, or never. And when the pregnancy is removed,  you don’t have to carry the burden or struggle to recover, but she does.

You guys should stick a sock in it.

************************************************************

Commenter said: “…It was morally right to let the Jews live.

Nothing in that extends to a foetus. It is not a living human…”


But you see, the right of a human to live is even now selectively applied. We are having this discussion because I assert that the fetuses do have a right to live, just as the Jews did. If you were to discover that human fetuses are living human beings, would you grant that their killing by the millions is as wrong as the Holocaust? I think you would have to.

If we accept that selectively killing human beings is wrong for ethical reasons, pro-choicers must resort to a truly silly proposition in order to defend abortion as a beneficial thing. It is worded in one of several ways:

a fetus is not a person / a fetus is not human / not a living human / is a clump of cells  / is not sentient / feels no pain OR

A fetus isn’t a human being YET / is only a potential human /  becomes a human being at: 24 weeks / when viable / after I think of it as a baby/ another arbitrary point

OR the silliest of all: when its mother decides she wants it.

This position is not supported by medical science or philosophy, but it is your last ethical straw. You must dehumanize someone who is clearly human and alive in order to defend the rightness of legal abortion.

**********************************************************

To select veganism as your mark of moral superiority while approving legalized abortion is illogical. I would add that it’s morally indefensible. You swallow a camel and strain at a gnat.

And here’s a thing for all you vegan, animal-sympathizing-abortion-supporters:

“For whatever those videos reveal of the inner workings of the abortion industry, they point as well to this related truth: Defending animal welfare while remaining adamantly pro-choice with respect to the abortion of human animals is not morally and intellectually sustainable. As an argument retaining any credibility, it’s over.”

Why Animal Lovers Should Abhor Planned Parenthood

***********************************************************

It took the atheist commenters several days to produce a logical challenge anything like a syllogism, and I think it was accidental.  The most-often challenge flung at me was a tu quoque, a “You too!”

Yeah well, your god committed genocide! Get off your high horse!”

The better challenge could be summarized thus: “Since you are a “fundie”, you believe the Bible is historically and otherwise true, and you blindly support all that God supposedly says and does. God commanded the Israelites to commit genocide upon other nations. Therefore, you support the genocides in the Bible, therefore you support genocide.”

Well done.

Of course, the challenge is still loaded with a ton of presuppositions and is founded upon the belief that the questioner is in a superior moral position to God and is justified in sitting in judgment of his Creator.

That’s a problem because God is an objective truth.

************************************************************

The charge that I accused one commenter of supporting the extermination of babies?

If abortion is the termination of the lives of  human beings,

and if the commenter has repeatedly defended the right to abortion,

then, the commenter supports the extermination of human beings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What’s Wrong with Genocide?

Open your mouth for the speechless
In the cause of all who are appointed to die.

My recent post https://madelynlang469.com/2016/02/13/why-do-you-champion-genocide/ seemed to have hit a nerve. In the back-and-forth of comments, my self-described atheist opposers on this issue spent several days and at least three blog forums expressing this thought over and over:

The right to abortion is good and the comparison made to Nazi death camps is atrocious.

Then followed a lengthy discussion on the equivalence between the death camps and…

eating animals

which then devolved into a discussion on whether plants feel pain. (They’re not sure that plants don’t feel pain but they’re absolutely positive that unborn babies can’t.)

I tried vainly to point out the ethical problems with equating meat eating with the extermination of ethnic people groups while approving the legal killing of millions of human beings in utero; as well the outrage at my comparison of  numbers two and three. I was stonewalled and diverted. Not one person was willing to even attempt to tell me what was the difference between the gas chamber and the abortion clinic.

My wheels do sometimes turn slowly but after three days of this, I finally realized what the problem is for them. Although they may not realize it, they don’t really know what’s wrong with the death camps either.

The irony and cognitive dissonance you demonstrate is too easy. You can’t tell the difference between yourself and a cow, so you’ve gone vegan. If you can’t differentiate those two, why don’t you feel more sympathy for the child? Can you see what’s ultimately wrong with human genocide?

So here’s a challenge for my recent atheist conversants:

Can you tell me what is intrinsically wrong with herding human beings into camps then systematically ending their lives?  What is objectively wrong about it?

Do not tell me how it makes you feel or that everyone just knows.

Do not tell me what’s illegal about it. Tell me why it’s negative. Please explain how it is wrong in an absolute way.

Understand that I want you to have an answer. I’d rather be wrong about this and have to concede that you have a stable moral base, some objective check-and-balance against nihilism.

However, possessing no objective standard for human behavior is a charge often leveled at the new atheists, and I have never seen a new atheist answer the charge well. In fact, I have never seen one who seems to think it’s particularly important to.

On this excellent post on another blog, one atheist declared this: “Atheists do not assume they as individuals are the arbiter of right and wrong.” I commented that they sure do; since an atheist has no objective source to reference for his approvals and condemnations, his only source is himself. Therefore it is the atheist who is acting as arbiter, often showing up on Christian blogs to express disgust, to mock, to personally insult and to generally be a very obnoxious crank. Going about declaring this good and that heinous.

Self-righteous? Yes.

Self-righteousness is a charge regularly leveled at Christians. “people like Madblog make me sick to my stomach with their disgusting hypocritical morality.”

Open your mouth for the speechless
In the cause of all who are appointed to die.

We who call ourselves Christians have a mandate from a higher authority. The atheist goes about condemning by no higher authority than himself.

Here is  the most relevant post to which I refer.

Why Do You Champion Genocide?

As a nation, we support the legal execution of a category of human beings.

They are not distinguished by their ethnicity or their political tribe. They are, however, one group of human beings set apart from the rest and destined for extinction. They are distinguished by their age and helplessness.

In the case of each of these people, there is another person who has total prerogative over his life or death. We recognize the rights of the person who has prerogative and erase the rights of the other.

Are my hands clean? Are yours?

As a nation, we share the responsibility. We elect legislators who carry out our will and those legislators have made unilateral, unassailable choice the law of the land. Then for 40 years we as a nation made legal abortion into an institution, a cornerstone, a way of life. It is so interwoven into the fabric of our lives, to remove it would require the most delicate surgery.

We have bestowed upon every woman of childbearing age an unquestionable right to end the lives of her own children without consequence. I do not know how any human being could be more privileged or more powerful. We women have won authority over life and death. We need to stop complaining about our victimhood.

In some future time, when cultural context has shifted, our descendants may see us just as we do those who happily operated the camps in 1940’s Germany. Please, where is the difference?

Maybe this: our victims are more innocent, more defenseless, and our reasons are more subjective.

If you champion politicians and candidates who are still fighting for your right to participate in genocide…think about what they are actually advocating. Think hard.

And in the future, just don’t say you didn’t know. No one will believe you.

The Worst Thing Women Believe

As women go, the culture goes. Arguably, women have always driven culture. In addition, Feminism has wildly succeeded in  irrevocably altering our society. Yet we hear constantly of  the victimhood, inequality and oppression experienced by women.

What have been the results of the advances women have made in society? Well, this happened:

Certain wings of the cultural arbiter class have officially ruled that an elderly man in a dress is a better woman than you are. He’s braver and more inspiring, he’s downright more important than you or any other woman out there. He knows what it’s like to be a woman better than you do. He looks so hot and glamorous they put him on the cover of Vogue and gave him his own reality show. Take your style cues from him. Learn to be as awesome and proud of your womanhood as he is.

(Note that to date, he is still physically male…excuse me, but having skipped some rather key surgery, isn’t he still sitting on the fence?)

Our popular culture seems to be saying that it doesn’t know what a man is anymore, or what a woman ever was.  It’s hard to keep up with all the jedi mind tricks we women are expected to master. What are some of the prevailing messages?

Trust your body. You are your body. You are a sexual being. Don’t ever deny your sexuality. Nothing’s wrong with experiencing all the sex you want, and there’s no “wrong” sexual desire. It’s wrong not to express who you are sexually.”

“Don’t trust your body. Your body is a baby machine. It will spew out babies right and left. If you don’t control that sucker you’re going to be surrounded by screaming babies before you know it, and your life will be over. Once you have a baby, you’ll be tied down forever instead of living your dream. You won’t be significant anymore.”

“‘Babies are terrible. Don’t have babies.’* Come to us for birth control; you can trust us. You’re pregnant already? No problem. We can fix that if you have the money. The most important thing is that you get back to living your life just the way you want.”

(We get the fee from you, then we sell your throwaways. Fer us it’s a two-fer.)

“When you’re ready, have a baby! Of course, after you’ve earned your degrees, begun your brilliant career, once you feel mature and ready, (certainly past the age of thirty!), go ahead and indulge in the experience once, or if you’re really into being a mom, twice.

It is important to some women to create a many-faceted life in which nurturing children is one part of a rich tapestry of identity and experience. Having a child is a real life-enhancer. As long as you’ve established a personal identity, it’s alright to indulge yourself a little, have a child and get all the feels that precious little baby brings out in you. Your life will so change.

After that, you had better defuse that biological bomb. That smoothly-running miracle of a reproductive system is a humiliating curse. Surgery is the most effective way to be sure there are no more interruptions to your exciting life.”

All of these thoughts are self-defeating and counterproductive, full of contradiction and double-think. We gulp them in like water, unfiltered and unreflected upon.

The flim-flam at its most basic is this: The highest goal a woman can grasp is total self-interest. Isn’t this Feminist article of faith? It is better to disregard all others’ interests in favor of achieving one’s own interests. Me first, me only. It’s written all over every single feminist aspiration.

But the worst thought by far that women have embraced is this:

 Human value is relative, not intrinsic, not eternal, not immeasurable. That the value of a given human being is dependent on a variety of situations and circumstances.

We traded our birthright for a mess of stew when we devalued our (dare I say God-given) callings. We need women to manifest the intrinsic nature that women have, the strengths which we have and which men don’t, the female brains which are different than male brains. We need women to be the teachers of culture, the passers-on of civilization, the nurturers of femininity and masculinity, the trainers of children to adulthood, the soft arbiters of culture. Shame on us that it is controversial to say: the bearers of children.

Fundamentally, we need women to be the protectors of helpless human life.

Those people who we most need to be the ones who are convinced that all souls are worthwhile no matter the circumstances, and to steadfastly protect any life under their influence, are the ones who’ve been sold on this thought: the value of a human life depends solely on the circumstances of the person who has the most power over its life.

Our civilization needs women to be uncompromising protectors of life or we are doomed to witness slow suicide.

But here and now, you are not considered an acceptably PC woman without an unquestioned belief in the health and justice of a woman’s right to choose death for her own dependent unborn child. It’s almost too sad to contemplate the role we might be playing: exercising our real calling as guardians of life, versus the one we have actually embraced.

 

*The Marching Morons, C.M. Kornbluth

 

The Wrong Side of History and Cultural Change

Let’s not be on the wrong side of history. I say this because I like to hope that some future people who descend from us will have rediscovered the moral compass, learned to honor objective justice, found the Truth. If so, they will look back at us and be appalled at our indolence, our indifference in the face of genocidal baby slaughter.

There can be no escape for us as a people.  Multiplied millions of murdered children cannot go unanswered by the conscience of any possible belief system. Only an utter nihilist could deny that the scales will ultimately be balanced and we will be found wanting. A universe which assigns no meaning and passes no judgment upon endless human carnage is an absurd nightmare.

The activities of Planned Parenthood are completely indefensible. If we cannot purge this corporate atrocity from our society, we do not deserve to call ourselves civilized, moral, or even good humans.

I do realize that all abortions are not chosen in as careless a manner as PP advocates that they should be. It may be, for many women, that all available medical advice was to terminate and try again. They may have grieved terribly over having to lose a child they wanted…Or they may have aborted for more elective reasons but felt unaccountably uncomfortable about it after. I realize that there are many women who were urged to abort for what seemed like unarguable reasons.

That’s the problem. If the default of our society  is to err on the side of death in order to solve our problems, and women are confronted with life-and-death decisions when they are at their most vulnerable…death becomes the predetermined result.

Then all those women, as well as their children, become victims of opportunistic corporate interests, and the aggrandizement of relentless political interests. The best and most well-meaning solution that such a society can offer is death as panacea.

Such a value system is inadequate to meet the needs of real life. In real life, unexpected stuff happens, lives are in danger, less than perfect decisions have to be made. If the overarching goal in the face of the unexpected is to get back to our comfort and our plans, no matter what the damage, those decisions will be brutal.

We need cultural change. We need to be honest enough to admit what is clearly before us.  We need to value Truth. We need to be willing to call evil, evil; and good, good.  We need to be a culture which values all human life and devalues none.

When difficult situations come, as they will, our impulse ought to be an honest search for a solution which protects and honors all involved. Our default should not be death for the defenseless ones.