Demolishing deceits with one arm behind my back
Some grim advocates of abortion also parade themselves as foes of religious faith. They deceitfully portray our opposition to abortion as exclusively motivated by personal faith. And they accuse pro-life voices of seeking to impose peculiar faith dictates universally.
God is the source of all man's medical knowledge, of course. And attempting to marginalize Him, that mankind's relatively tiny essence can assume the throne, is as pathetic an effort as trying to topple a stone castle with a papier mache sword.
To allow pro-life advocacy to go unchallenged must to some be considered counterproductive to their ugly anti-faith crusade.
But the pro-life position also enjoys hale support independent of religiosity. Biological evidence of indisputable nature is easily located.
Christopher Hitchens once wrote that anyone who spent five minutes with a biology text would understand that the fetus is an individual, living entity.
Many who deny that objective reality surely do so in the knowledge that medical truth (as well as Christianity) are against their favored mission. They are willing to turn blind eyes to biological facts and endorse infanticide in the name of a quixotic ideology.
That illogical ideology asserts that only when men and women are recognized as invariably identical is justice realized.
Equality should certainly be the ideal. But men and women are not identical in all ways. Nature -- which is to say God -- created in women the ability to fulfill particular life-producing processes. And that is a special role and function in which great pride should be taken.
(And please, let's not have any of that "mansplaining" nonsense. All who live in this world are entitled to offer commentary on it, as well as on any and all of its inhabitants. Affairs affect all. The argument that only members of Community X can legitimately speak about Community X is a segregative device for debate-stifling.)
The innate capacity of females to carry babies and give birth makes them, in that regard, distinct from males; it is ludicrous to suggest identical considerations always be accorded the inherently dissimilar.
Women enjoy that particular utility and should celebrate it as a defining trait that distinguishes and elevates them to special status. That momentous role is by nature theirs alone. Attempts to legislate it into only occasional realization that turns on self-interest, and seeking to make males and females interchangeable, does dirt to the natural order.
Abortions have killing as their sole purpose. Advocates of abortion cannot reasonably claim the deaths of babies are not their ambitions.
Not "choice" or "rights." Death.
In a recent social media exchange, I stated a simple truth: "The fact of humanity does not turn on circumstance of conception; it is objectively so, independent of origin."
Quickly came a standard scare-scenario: The eleven year-old impregnated by an uncle. Would I support the young victim's being "forced" to carry "the uncle's abomination," the challenger demanded. I was, they further railed, "forcing" my own religious beliefs on others.
I responded that, while the vile act itself certainly would be an abomination, innocent life produced by it would not be.
There are two ways the horrible, hypothetical uncle formulation can be viewed. One is as acid test. Anyone believing life is life must, to be consistent, believe that as unalterably in the foulest situation as in any other.
Should a pro-life advocate make even that solitary exception, they've given up the game. Now it's just a matter of where the line might be drawn.
The second way to consider the despicable uncle construction is as a signal by abortion-urgers that they realize the feebleness of their position. They understand biology is not in their corner, any more than the Christianity they so deplore.
All they have to wield against opponents is lurid moral shaming. Their implication is that those who don't champion the poor girl's ability to kill the unborn baby are effective allies of the perverse perpetrator.
Such scare propositions and attendent, hyperventilated terminology are more appropriate to dollar-grasping, Planned Parenthood postal appeals than serious debate.
The truth of my original statement -- "The fact of humanity does not turn on circumstance of conception; it is objectively so, independent of origin" -- remained unmolested, despite opponents' tactical waving of that execrable scenario.
Some grim advocates of abortion also parade themselves as foes of religious faith. They deceitfully portray our opposition to abortion as exclusively motivated by personal faith. And they accuse pro-life voices of seeking to impose peculiar faith dictates universally.
God is the source of all man's medical knowledge, of course. And attempting to marginalize Him, that mankind's relatively tiny essence can assume the throne, is as pathetic an effort as trying to topple a stone castle with a papier mache sword.
To allow pro-life advocacy to go unchallenged must to some be considered counterproductive to their ugly anti-faith crusade.
But the pro-life position also enjoys hale support independent of religiosity. Biological evidence of indisputable nature is easily located.
Christopher Hitchens once wrote that anyone who spent five minutes with a biology text would understand that the fetus is an individual, living entity.
Many who deny that objective reality surely do so in the knowledge that medical truth (as well as Christianity) are against their favored mission. They are willing to turn blind eyes to biological facts and endorse infanticide in the name of a quixotic ideology.
That illogical ideology asserts that only when men and women are recognized as invariably identical is justice realized.
Equality should certainly be the ideal. But men and women are not identical in all ways. Nature -- which is to say God -- created in women the ability to fulfill particular life-producing processes. And that is a special role and function in which great pride should be taken.
(And please, let's not have any of that "mansplaining" nonsense. All who live in this world are entitled to offer commentary on it, as well as on any and all of its inhabitants. Affairs affect all. The argument that only members of Community X can legitimately speak about Community X is a segregative device for debate-stifling.)
The innate capacity of females to carry babies and give birth makes them, in that regard, distinct from males; it is ludicrous to suggest identical considerations always be accorded the inherently dissimilar.
Women enjoy that particular utility and should celebrate it as a defining trait that distinguishes and elevates them to special status. That momentous role is by nature theirs alone. Attempts to legislate it into only occasional realization that turns on self-interest, and seeking to make males and females interchangeable, does dirt to the natural order.
Abortions have killing as their sole purpose. Advocates of abortion cannot reasonably claim the deaths of babies are not their ambitions.
Not "choice" or "rights." Death.
In a recent social media exchange, I stated a simple truth: "The fact of humanity does not turn on circumstance of conception; it is objectively so, independent of origin."
Quickly came a standard scare-scenario: The eleven year-old impregnated by an uncle. Would I support the young victim's being "forced" to carry "the uncle's abomination," the challenger demanded. I was, they further railed, "forcing" my own religious beliefs on others.
I responded that, while the vile act itself certainly would be an abomination, innocent life produced by it would not be.
There are two ways the horrible, hypothetical uncle formulation can be viewed. One is as acid test. Anyone believing life is life must, to be consistent, believe that as unalterably in the foulest situation as in any other.
Should a pro-life advocate make even that solitary exception, they've given up the game. Now it's just a matter of where the line might be drawn.
The second way to consider the despicable uncle construction is as a signal by abortion-urgers that they realize the feebleness of their position. They understand biology is not in their corner, any more than the Christianity they so deplore.
All they have to wield against opponents is lurid moral shaming. Their implication is that those who don't champion the poor girl's ability to kill the unborn baby are effective allies of the perverse perpetrator.
Such scare propositions and attendent, hyperventilated terminology are more appropriate to dollar-grasping, Planned Parenthood postal appeals than serious debate.
The truth of my original statement -- "The fact of humanity does not turn on circumstance of conception; it is objectively so, independent of origin" -- remained unmolested, despite opponents' tactical waving of that execrable scenario.
posted by DC Larson at
June 04, 2019
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home