It is difficult to respond with charity when "progressive" leftists show nothing but regressive disdain to their opponents.
There is a certain major journalist -- whom we shall refer to as "Mr. Z" for the sake of anonymity and my legal well-being -- whom I routinely challenge on his many false pro(re)gressive arguments. We have previously had an email exchange, while one of my numerous letters was published in his newspaper.
In Mr. Z's most recent tirade, he lambasts the pro-life agenda (whom he refers to under the misleading moniker of "anti-choice") for "not worrying about real babies" and "defending pseudo babies while not changing any diapers themselves." In what be one of the most ridiculous sentences in liberal journalistic history, Mr. Z writes:
"I, like most Americans, differentiate between actual, born-and-alive-in-the-real-world-now babies and the fertilized egg the size of the period at the end of this sentence that typically gets aborted."
This, my friends, is apparently what passes for a well-reasoned opinion piece these days. I could not resist a response. My first email to Mr. Z and his newspaper read:
It is interesting that Mr. Z would heap such derision on activists who care about the welfare of (in his own words) a "fertilized egg the size of a period." Mr. Z seems to forget that he also previously existed as a being no larger then the period which ends this sentence. Furthermore, when you deny an entire segment of our population its humanity, you find yourself on the very same intellectual slippery slope which has previously been used to justify the brutal murder of millions of other innocent "non-persons." I would think that a Jewish thinker would be more sensitive about making such unwarranted generalizations.
Much to my chagrin, Mr. Z replied quickly:
"Like the baby metaphor, the abortion-equals-holocaust line of thinking only really works if you already believe it. I could just as easily point out that the tendency of pro-lifers to force their religious scruples through law onto the unwilling smacks of the Spanish inquistiion. But that would be insensitive, though I'm not sure how somebody standing in the street with a five-foot photo of mangled fetuses can talk of "sensitivity." Thanks for writng."
You're more likely to get cohesive arguments out of a high-school debate team than the average liberal journalist, it seems. While I elected to ignore Mr. Z's blatant lack of knowledge regarding historical events like the Spanish Inquisition (which were just about as religious as another more-political-than-religious event, the Reformation), I couldn't resist another response:
"Thanks for your response. I will only briefly tackle what you wrote, in all charity and respect, simply because I can see that you have not thought this issue through. I will only itemize the list to make it clear, not in the intention of being condescending.
1.) The word "baby" is not a "metaphor," but rather only a label, albeit an emotional one. Yet one my continue to ask: when is it a baby? When it is wanted? Only after it is born? It is a terrible burden to define the beginning of our shared humanity.
2.) I never said "abortion = holocaust." I clearly said that it is a philosophical slippery slope to remove the rights of our shared humanity from any segment of the population. The Nazis thought that the mentally ill and elderly were "undesirables" whose life was a social burden; they also had no qualms regarding abortion. Slippery slopes being what they are, itt was not a far intellectual leap to label an entire nationality as sub-human. Consider what manner of rationalization it took to allow otherwise cultured and mannered men to slaughter thousands of men with their own bare hands.
3.) I never mention religion, nor are you fair to assume that I am religious. I've always said that atheists and secular humanists should be the most vehement pro-lifers. To the Judeo-Christian mentality, there is at least an afterlife. To the secular humanist, you are robbing a unique human creature of their only chance at existence. This is a terrible crime to commit in the name of social convenience.
4.) The people who stand in the streets with pictures of dismembered fetuses are simply trying to express the truth about the abortion procedure; it is a truth that demands an insensitive expression, as nothing else seems to get through.
-I appreciate your return email, and hope that you take these points under consideration. You are far too intelligent of a man to write the manner of article which was published in today's paper."
Predictably, Mr. Z never responded to this, as those who are grossly in error seldom wish to confront the glaring failings of their arguments. Yet his most recent column betrayed either further disdain for his readership, or perhaps the presence of an editor asking him to "tone it down a bit."
This most recent column, after the vicious anti-life attack, was about muffins.
Yes, "muffins." . . .
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Thursday, April 30, 2009
How to deal with the Progressive Monster:A Profile in Courage.
To my friends in the silent majority: you need not be afraid. Watching Gianna Jessen -- the survivor of a saline abortion -- stare down a room of liberal Australian policy-makers and deliver the unapologetic truth has struck a deep chord within me, and I hope and pray it has affected you as well. (I am including the clips below, for those who have not watched them yet.)
How cowardly we can be, blanching as lunatics dismantle Western society before our very eyes! How utterly ineffectual in offering -- or even bothering to learn -- the very simple answers to the so-called "big" questions which pro(re)gressives hurl our way.
Sure, the heat can be intense when the lefties get riled at us: after all, they believe that they are fighting for equality and righteousness and freedom. It can be especially fiery on social-networking sites dominated by young people. After all, modern relativistic liberalism (a far cry from the positive works of classical liberalism) is an intellectual disease which runs especially deep in the young, while thankfully only being chronic in rare cases. Still, the abuse is never pleasant. There is real and frightening anger there, as happens whenever a lost person comes to the terrifying precipice of truth. Simply witness the recent tirade of Perez Hilton against Miss California; the vitriol was beyond telling (and far from rare in such extremist circles.)
Yet we have merely to open our eyes to perceive the truth of such matters. In my time, my friends and I have taken serious heat and criticism for being a pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-religious kinds of people.
In others words, we've endured abuse because we don't believe that a modern culture should be able to dismember babies or burn them alive simply out of convenience. We've endured scandal because we believe that marriage is sacred and that sex is not trivial. We've been called foolish because we can't believe in the utterly mathematical improbability that all of existence is somehow a random occurrence. And we've been called bigots because we believe that truth is an absolute, rather than a simple matter of opinion. In other words, we've endured pain for believing in the very tenets which built Western society and made it great.
Seen from such higher ground, these fierce criticisms lose most of their power. The roaring masses become about as frightening as a lost flock of sheep, bleating in their confusion.
Just look at Ms. Jessen, smirking confidently at them all. If there is fear there, I don't see it. In her unapologetic witness to her own pain -- and her unflinching witness to truth -- she becomes a mirror for all of our broken society to gaze painfully into. She is the reflection of our brokenness, and the vision of a better way forward. Look at Miss California, accepting the violent tirade of Mr. "Hilton" like a patient mother enduring the temper-tantrum of a small child. In the end, he is no more threatening than that.
Be it nicely or with fire, we must not hesitate to speak the truth and defend the defenseless. Keeping our silence, we may serve our own peace, but we do not serve the world in the way which is expected of us. Just listen to Ms. Jessen's appeal to the men in our world, and you have my thoughts on the matter.
How cowardly we can be, blanching as lunatics dismantle Western society before our very eyes! How utterly ineffectual in offering -- or even bothering to learn -- the very simple answers to the so-called "big" questions which pro(re)gressives hurl our way.
Sure, the heat can be intense when the lefties get riled at us: after all, they believe that they are fighting for equality and righteousness and freedom. It can be especially fiery on social-networking sites dominated by young people. After all, modern relativistic liberalism (a far cry from the positive works of classical liberalism) is an intellectual disease which runs especially deep in the young, while thankfully only being chronic in rare cases. Still, the abuse is never pleasant. There is real and frightening anger there, as happens whenever a lost person comes to the terrifying precipice of truth. Simply witness the recent tirade of Perez Hilton against Miss California; the vitriol was beyond telling (and far from rare in such extremist circles.)
Yet we have merely to open our eyes to perceive the truth of such matters. In my time, my friends and I have taken serious heat and criticism for being a pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-religious kinds of people.
In others words, we've endured abuse because we don't believe that a modern culture should be able to dismember babies or burn them alive simply out of convenience. We've endured scandal because we believe that marriage is sacred and that sex is not trivial. We've been called foolish because we can't believe in the utterly mathematical improbability that all of existence is somehow a random occurrence. And we've been called bigots because we believe that truth is an absolute, rather than a simple matter of opinion. In other words, we've endured pain for believing in the very tenets which built Western society and made it great.
Seen from such higher ground, these fierce criticisms lose most of their power. The roaring masses become about as frightening as a lost flock of sheep, bleating in their confusion.
Just look at Ms. Jessen, smirking confidently at them all. If there is fear there, I don't see it. In her unapologetic witness to her own pain -- and her unflinching witness to truth -- she becomes a mirror for all of our broken society to gaze painfully into. She is the reflection of our brokenness, and the vision of a better way forward. Look at Miss California, accepting the violent tirade of Mr. "Hilton" like a patient mother enduring the temper-tantrum of a small child. In the end, he is no more threatening than that.
Be it nicely or with fire, we must not hesitate to speak the truth and defend the defenseless. Keeping our silence, we may serve our own peace, but we do not serve the world in the way which is expected of us. Just listen to Ms. Jessen's appeal to the men in our world, and you have my thoughts on the matter.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
"Shall we reinstate Slavery, then?"
***The following is an excerpt from a recent debate between two prominent politicians. Congressman Smith is a noted liberal, while Senator James is a prominent Secular Humanist.***
Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"
Senator James: "Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"
CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"
SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."
CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"
SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"
CS: "That's ludicrous!"
SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."
CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."
SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."
Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"
SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."
CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"
SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"
CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"
JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"
CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"
SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."
CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."
SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"
CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."
SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"
CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."
SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"
CS: "That's absurd!"
SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"
CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."
SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."
CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."
SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."
***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.
There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.
Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...
Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"
Senator James: "Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"
CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"
SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."
CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"
SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"
CS: "That's ludicrous!"
SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."
CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."
SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."
Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"
SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."
CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"
SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"
CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"
JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"
CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"
SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."
CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."
SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"
CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."
SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"
CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."
SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"
CS: "That's absurd!"
SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"
CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."
SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."
CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."
SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."
***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.
There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.
Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
31 Nobel Laureates Killed in the Womb.
The Heisman Trophy is one of the greatest honors in the sporting world.
This year's winner -- only a sophomore -- was almost aborted in the womb.
Tim Tebow now attends the University of Florida, his 6'3, 235 lb frame a real blessing to Gator football. It is difficult to imagine that Tebow was a "risky baby," and that doctors encouraged his mother to abort him.
Carrying Tim to term could have threatened his mother's life, yet she elected to try and bring him into the world. I cannot say that I would have the strength to make such a decision myself. I only know that Mrs. Tebow is a woman of great strength and faith, and that her faith was rewarded with a gift to her family, sports fans, and pro-lifers everywhere.
Liberals and Pro-Deathers are VERY quick to cite exceptions to the rule, justifying Roe-v-Wade by bringing up instances of rape, incest, and medical concerns. They are willing to justify the slaughter -- nay, genocide -- of an entire generation, all in the name of a statistical minority. They ignore the health risks, psychological risks, and social costs of abortion, all in the name of exceptions of the rule.
Tim Tebow is the statistical minority for Pro-Lifers. From now on, whenever a Pro-Death supporter cites such exceptions to the rule, I will cite Tim Tebow.
What other great athletes, artists, scientists, and leaders have been aborted out of fear or convenience? What kind of nation can legalize and subsidize the living dismemberment of their most vulnerable citizens?
FULLY ONE-THIRD of conceived children have been aborted since 1973. Hence, my use of the word "genocide."
Fr. Thomas Eutenheuer writes:
"Dr. Brian Clowes, HLI researcher, has examined the data from the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States (most recent census data) and extrapolated the numbers of the various professions and categories of Americans who have been eliminated in the wake of nearly 49 million legalized abortions, one third of all Americans conceived since 1973. The following numbers are based on the actual government estimates of the professions represented in America. So then, who have we lost to abortion?
* 2 US Presidents
* 7 Supreme Court Justices
* 102 US Senators and 589 Congressmen
* 8,123 Federal, district and local court judges
* 31 Nobel Prize laureates
* 328 Olympic medalists including 123 Gold medalists
* 6,092 professional athletes
* 134,841 physicians and surgeons
* 392,500 registered nurses
* 70,669 priests, ministers, rabbis and imams including
* 6,852 priests and 11,010 nuns (vocations “shortage”?)
* 1,102,443 teachers (K-12)
* 553,821 truck drivers
* 224,518 maids and housekeepers
* 336,939 janitors
* 134,028 farmers and ranchers
* 109,984 police officers and sheriff’s deputies
* 39,477 firefighters
* 17,221 barbers, and
* 24,450,000…women (the gender of roughly half of all children aborted).
These numbers of course are only the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind that we get our statistics about abortion from the abortion industry itself which has a vested interest in under-reporting the numbers. Likewise, these categories are only a few of the professions that Americans actually work in and are by no means a full portrayal of the total American workforce. What they represent, however, is the immense human toll that abortion takes on a society. Abortion-promoters present abortion as an exclusively private choice, but thirty-five years of abortion exposes the perniciousness of that lie. There is a social toll that comes from abortion which cannot easily be corrected." (From "Spirit and Life":http://www.hli.org/sl_2007-12-14.html)
Thank you, Father -- you have clearly shown that abortion is not a "personal choice," but a pariah which has drastically affected our nation. In an age where America is finding it increasingly difficult to compete and maintain her world-status, how much is abortion to blame?
Many European countries have suffered intellectual vacuum due to the mass killings of the Second World War. In America, we have thanked God for our peace and security by creating a killing field that only Stalin eclipsed during the 20th century.
The witness of Mrs. Tebow is one to be wondered at and immitated. Thank you for your strength and faith, and thank you for the witness of your son.
This year's winner -- only a sophomore -- was almost aborted in the womb.
Tim Tebow now attends the University of Florida, his 6'3, 235 lb frame a real blessing to Gator football. It is difficult to imagine that Tebow was a "risky baby," and that doctors encouraged his mother to abort him.
Carrying Tim to term could have threatened his mother's life, yet she elected to try and bring him into the world. I cannot say that I would have the strength to make such a decision myself. I only know that Mrs. Tebow is a woman of great strength and faith, and that her faith was rewarded with a gift to her family, sports fans, and pro-lifers everywhere.
Liberals and Pro-Deathers are VERY quick to cite exceptions to the rule, justifying Roe-v-Wade by bringing up instances of rape, incest, and medical concerns. They are willing to justify the slaughter -- nay, genocide -- of an entire generation, all in the name of a statistical minority. They ignore the health risks, psychological risks, and social costs of abortion, all in the name of exceptions of the rule.
Tim Tebow is the statistical minority for Pro-Lifers. From now on, whenever a Pro-Death supporter cites such exceptions to the rule, I will cite Tim Tebow.
What other great athletes, artists, scientists, and leaders have been aborted out of fear or convenience? What kind of nation can legalize and subsidize the living dismemberment of their most vulnerable citizens?
FULLY ONE-THIRD of conceived children have been aborted since 1973. Hence, my use of the word "genocide."
Fr. Thomas Eutenheuer writes:
"Dr. Brian Clowes, HLI researcher, has examined the data from the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States (most recent census data) and extrapolated the numbers of the various professions and categories of Americans who have been eliminated in the wake of nearly 49 million legalized abortions, one third of all Americans conceived since 1973. The following numbers are based on the actual government estimates of the professions represented in America. So then, who have we lost to abortion?
* 2 US Presidents
* 7 Supreme Court Justices
* 102 US Senators and 589 Congressmen
* 8,123 Federal, district and local court judges
* 31 Nobel Prize laureates
* 328 Olympic medalists including 123 Gold medalists
* 6,092 professional athletes
* 134,841 physicians and surgeons
* 392,500 registered nurses
* 70,669 priests, ministers, rabbis and imams including
* 6,852 priests and 11,010 nuns (vocations “shortage”?)
* 1,102,443 teachers (K-12)
* 553,821 truck drivers
* 224,518 maids and housekeepers
* 336,939 janitors
* 134,028 farmers and ranchers
* 109,984 police officers and sheriff’s deputies
* 39,477 firefighters
* 17,221 barbers, and
* 24,450,000…women (the gender of roughly half of all children aborted).
These numbers of course are only the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind that we get our statistics about abortion from the abortion industry itself which has a vested interest in under-reporting the numbers. Likewise, these categories are only a few of the professions that Americans actually work in and are by no means a full portrayal of the total American workforce. What they represent, however, is the immense human toll that abortion takes on a society. Abortion-promoters present abortion as an exclusively private choice, but thirty-five years of abortion exposes the perniciousness of that lie. There is a social toll that comes from abortion which cannot easily be corrected." (From "Spirit and Life":http://www.hli.org/sl_2007-12-14.html)
Thank you, Father -- you have clearly shown that abortion is not a "personal choice," but a pariah which has drastically affected our nation. In an age where America is finding it increasingly difficult to compete and maintain her world-status, how much is abortion to blame?
Many European countries have suffered intellectual vacuum due to the mass killings of the Second World War. In America, we have thanked God for our peace and security by creating a killing field that only Stalin eclipsed during the 20th century.
The witness of Mrs. Tebow is one to be wondered at and immitated. Thank you for your strength and faith, and thank you for the witness of your son.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
