These are “the least of these.”
Explain to me how you think they’re not.
These are “the least of these.”
Explain to me how you think they’re not.
If these aren’t “the least of these” I don’t know who is.
Truth matters absolutely. The nature of truth requires that I value truth before my own preferences. Truths are true no matter that I ignore or disagree with them.
Here is a simple truth on a particular subject. Human life has intrinsic value and meaning. Its Creator and Designer has clearly expressed this truth, in both word and action. *
Here is a conclusion which I draw from that truth: if you are a supporter of legal abortion or Planned Parenthood, you are making a truth claim against the intrinsic value of all human beings.
You are claiming that human beings receive their value extrinsically; that we each are granted value from another party outside of ourselves. You are claiming that value is granted by an outside entity according its own standard.
You are a defender of the belief that some people are valuable, and that other people are not valuable. Which means that human lives are not valuable in themselves.
Indeed you are claiming that no human being is intrinsically valuable.
Not the unborn fetus, not you, not me, not anyone.
This won’t be news to those pro-abortion supporters who are honest or who rise above the virtue-signaling level of activism. They will say that the unborn have no rights that we are bound to respect. Dred Scott meet Hillary Clinton.
And so, you and I are living in a world in which we each receive our value from something outside of ourselves. I have some limited power to assert that I matter; some people are better at convincing others of their value than other people are; some people have no power at all. Compare a charismatic sociopath to a disabled newborn–who wins?
One who negates the value given by the Creator of all things is in a difficult place when asked to justify human life in an objective way.
People who are thoughtful believers in Jesus Christ have a fundamental understanding that every single human being who was ever conceived has intrinsic and equal value. That value is not subjectively granted or acquired.
You who are pro-choice believe you’re virtuous because you care about the rights of women so much that you assert that they have an absolute right to societal approval and public funding of their abortions. Even while this right is exercised at the cost of many millions of human lives.
I believe it is virtuous to value the lives of all women and all unborn, that they all have intrinsic value, that they all have the right to life that has been given by their Creator; and that when we deprive any of that life, we violate an eternal law. We deny an eternal truth.
But let’s put aside the divine element for a second, as you would have it.
You pit one life against the other. You must do that if you believe that value is conferred rather than already present. Whose rights win the contest? is your context. You believe in a zero-sum proposition: one has value or the other does, and we must choose. But what is your solution if both have equal value that we must honor?
And since there is no absolute or objective conferrer of value, who will we respect as worthy to grant worth to us? This is a question you cannot dismiss. Someone will come along and claim that right, and assert the power we’ve given him. We’ve seen that movie many times, and the results are always tragic, ugly, and anything but virtuous.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13: 8-10
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. Psalm 127
“Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.” Deut 27:25
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. Psalm 139: 13
Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. Psalm 139:16
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. Philippians 2: 3-4
There are two kinds of people. There are the people who are born, grow, live their lives, and die. For example me and you.
And there are the other people.
They are disposable. They are optional. They are possibilities that we do not want. They are not born. They are not given the opportunity to grow or live lives. But they do die.
Interesting science factoid: Scientists have yet to discover an intrinsic difference between the disposables and the other people. We have yet to find the difference, at any stage of development pre-birth, between a disposable human being, and you. Interestingly, there does not appear to be a demand for a genetic test to be used during pregnancy to determine whether you are carrying a real child or a disposable one.
Since our laws allow one unborn person of say, thirty weeks gestation to be called a person, nurtured, hoped for and loved; and another unborn person of thirty weeks gestation to be unwanted and extracted from the place of its sustenance in a manner designed to end its life, and discarded as waste (or sorted and sold); the age or developmental status of the person cannot be the determining factor.
“We have some young people in the audience who weren’t even born when Roe [versus Wade] was decided, and this is pretty important,” said Vice Presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D).
That was true. There are also those people who weren’t in the audience because they weren’t born.
The recent Democrat candidate for president unflinchingly declared that “unborn persons do not have Constitutional rights.” In theory, that jury is still out. In real life, it is undeniably true.
In 1973, the distinction between the two types of persons was legally recognized. Since then, we have discovered disposable persons in huge numbers. We ought to be very thankful to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates for managing the enormous disposal issue so creatively.
I know what some of you are saying right now. That is not a person!!!!! (redundant punctuation included.) But arguments in support of assigning disposable status are, without exception: arbitrary, self-serving, agendized rationalizations which appeal to ludicrous internet scientism.
But since WordPress comment conversations have taught me the uselessness of arguing for the personhood of very young fetuses with people who raise this particular objection, I will, for the moment, allow personhood status to be undetermined.
But perhaps you can tell me why it is a moral neutral to dispose of a living organism which will become a human being.
Not potentially, not maybe. This small organism will become a person every single time. It will not become anything else. If it survives, the result will be exactly the same kind of organism that you are now. A human being.
The determination of the moment of personhood is irrelevant.
A human being is created in the image of the Creator of all things. Our nation is founded upon an idea that all human beings possess inherent and equal rights. We dismiss the disposables’ rights just before we dismiss their lives.
We must do the former, or we must openly admit that we are arbitrary granters of human rights, and that we openly confer rights to some and deny rights to others. And that would make us unfair. Not nice people. Hypocritical. That’s just not us.
What are the real implications? If we are honest with ourselves, the answer is too plain. We kill people for preference sake. We balance our logic and our integrity on a knife’s edge of rationalization, and we maintain hyper-vigilance toward any idea which would give us even a gentle push.
Sir David Attenborough says that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the world’s resources.He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.
“We are a plague on the Earth.”
“We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that’s what’s happening. Too many people there. They can’t support themselves — and it’s not an inhuman thing to say.”
Overpopulation panic is a rather retro fear, one which badly needs updating. One example of 21st century people still buying into panic over mid-20th century (questionable) hypothetical problems. Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, clings to his guns about the apocalypse of overpopulation, even though all of his deadlines have long since passed with no sign of his promised disaster.
Ehrlich: “Allowing women to choose to have as many children as they desire is like allowing everyone to “throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor’s backyard as they want.”
People = garbage. Other people, that is.
And can you just feel the outrage that someone is throwing their garbage into my yard?
Today, birth dearth and the failure to achieve replacement numbers is a crisis in most of Europe. Economies the world over are in danger of collapse, and many millions of men have no hope of ever creating families because their spouses were aborted or prevented.
The progressive solution focuses entirely on the need for women to limit their childbearing, especially third-world women in less white cultures. We need to stop producing so many (poor) people!
In fact, one reason for seven billion people is at the other end of the age spectrum. One reason there are so many people is that so many people are living longer, and projections have this “problem” growing exponentially. Look here.
Our civilization has succeeded in producing such a sustainably high quality of life that people are living longer, healthily and comfortably, for far longer than ever before. Cue the subversive change agents to transform that achievement into a catastrophe.
And since Sir Attenborough is 85 plus, the personal earth-friendly solution should be obvious. That’s a joke. I would never suggest that someone ought to commit suicide. But perhaps Sir Attenborough would gain a new perspective on the issue if the solution required him to act, rather than to suggest what the less fortunate ought to do about the problem.
I have many acquaintances who know exactly what other people ought to do about overpopulation. But I have never heard one of them volunteer to help out in any way that would infringe on her personal preferences, or to volunteer to reduce overpopulation by one.
The proudly Childfree love these news items. It’s confirmation bias. I don’t want children, I don’t particularly like children, no one should have children. I have my search engines on the lookout for why it’s morally superior to be childfree. ( The internet responds favorably, just as it would with a totally contradictory search.) I’ve only experienced family from the perspective of the child, but I know best.
And it’s just one baby step to: YOUR only morally responsible act is to limit YOUR family to one child, if any. Moral condemnation follows for families of more than two.
Others should sacrifice. Abortion to the rescue! Death to the helpless is an easy solution. But better yet, prevent that infestation of humans from being conceived in the first place. Sir Attenborough and the like: Sorry, little one. I will live into my nineties sucking up wealth and fame but the planet is just too crowded to permit you a spot.
However, even when our society eventually takes its eyes off the little ones in this equation, and decides to consider the elderly as candidates for elimination, there’s still no way that people like Sir David would be considered as expendable. We are willing worshipers of experts, celebrities, royals, presidents and the fabulously wealthy. Even in America, we want kings. And we love hitching our cabooses to someone else’s engine as long as we can advertise our morally superior destinations. When the celebrity-expert wears a mantle like environmentalist, or social justice warrior, we love the bling of associating ourselves with him, and we swallow the slogans whole.
Maybe we should acknowledge some facts about our human nature: we are fundamentally self-seeking and desperately self-important. We do not create social improvements that ask us to kill ourselves off. We invent solutions which make it a moral imperative to kill off other people, or to prevent them entirely.
There is no scenario where we do not value some people and devalue other people. We are tenacious respecters of persons. As a society we have decided that the most helpless, the ones who most deserve our protection, the mockingbirds, the ones who are situated in the most naturally protective and nurturing place: the womb…are the ones who are chosen to be sacrificed in the building of a better world.
When social planning elitists sound alarms, we are all too willing to rally, as long as someone lesser makes the sacrifices.
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 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.
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.”
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.”
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.