| « | The call of the prophet. |
»
|
|
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Law Of Life: A Screed-Rumination “Twofer”
One of the things left-liberals dislike about Christians is how we stubbornly return, over and over, to this antiquated notion of natural law: that is, characteristics of the universe that cannot be set aside by will or artifice. What nonsense! Everyone knows the law is whatever Obama says it is a human creation! How can there be "laws" with binding force that didn't issue from the mouth of an approved leftist spokesman a human legislature with recognized authority?
I await the passage of a law that says left-liberals shall henceforth be able to fly without aircraft. Or control their weights and figures by intention alone. Or be immune to prosecution for murder.
Hey, they do control the White House, and both houses of Congress by hefty majorities, don't they? So where are the bills for those things?
Why, yes, the subject is abortion. However did you guess?
Via the esteemed BlackIsWhite, we have this:
The National Organization for Women is firing back at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who blasted the group earlier this week for calling on CBS to pull a Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow.The ad shows Tebow and his mother Pam discussing her decision not to end a difficult pregnancy in 1987. Pam carried the baby to term against her doctors’ recommendations, and her child grew up to be the Heisman-trophy winning University of Florida quarterback, who many consider the best college football player in a generation....
Palin, who praised NOW for its work calling out “advertisers and networks for airing sexist and demeaning portrayals of women,” wrote that “NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards.”
“My message to these groups who are inexplicably offended by a pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life message airing during the Super Bowl: please concentrate on empowering women, help with efforts to prevent unexpected pregnancies, stay consistent with your message that for too long women have been made to feel like sex objects in our ‘modern’ culture and that we can expect better in 2010.”
In a statement to POLITICO, NOW President Terry O’Neill said that Palin is “missing our point.”
“The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It's to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned,” O’Neill said. “There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion.”
“Focus on the Family has cynically set it up so they can say anyone who disagrees with airing this ad is disrespecting one woman and her choice. NOW respects every woman's right to plan her own family and insists our laws do the same,” said O’Neill.
Slick, eh? I particularly liked the quick transition from "women who need abortions" to "will have abortions."
What O'Neill would prefer that you not know is that quite a number of women who have abortions regret it for the rest of their lives. Some prove infertile in later life. Others prove incapable of an enduring relationship with a man. Many others "merely" live with conscience pangs it seems nothing can dispel. More, there are studies that suggest a correlation between abortion and physical ailments of varying severity, though, as one might expect, all such linkages are hotly disputed.
Another thing O'Neill would prefer that you not know is that abortion-on-demand is one big BLEEP!ing business in these United States. Abortionists rake in many millions of dollars per year from their estimated 1.2 million clients. Some of those bucks come from tax coffers, which, as you know, are filled by you and me regardless of our dislike of the practice.
And there's this -- and yes, it's something else O'Neill and NOW would prefer that you not know: abortion rates correlate inversely with rates of live birth. Women who have abortions average far fewer born children per woman than women who don't. Nations in which abortion is commonplace are experiencing sharp negative population trends, with a consequent inability to sustain their economies and their welfare states. If you've wondered why Europe has allowed so many Muslims into its lands, despite the appalling danger substantial Muslim fractions produce, you know it now. Mark Steyn's America Alone is most eloquent on the subject.
As we're all too aware, the problem here isn't "women who need abortions." Nor is it Focus on the Family's agenda, which is and has always been staunchly and openly pro-life. There's no question that FotF's leadership and membership would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. It's the most open of all open secrets. But the ad says nothing about that; it merely refers to a case in which an extremely high achiever was born to a woman who'd been strongly advised to abort him. That's about as apolitical as a message ad could be.
What troubles NOW is that the major networks are supposed to turn away voices that dare to dissent from left-liberal orthodoxy, especially on the subject of abortion. One such voice has been permitted past the barricades, albeit with an inoffensive message about the possibilities inherent in choosing life -- and the possibilities foregone if one doesn't. Left-liberals cannot win arguments with reason and evidence; those things are against them in virtually every case. To win the day, they must suppress competing messages, evidence, and opinions. There's no other way to defend a position that defies the laws of nature.
Oops. I just implied that for a woman to kill her baby is somehow depraved and unnatural, didn't I? My bad. Apologies to everyone who was offended. But I meant it that way, just the same.
The law of life is quite simple: Grow or die.
A species that indulges in auto-predation, whether through cannibalism, legalized murder, or rampant abortion, is defying the law of life. It cannot hold its position in a competitive ecology. Sooner or later, something will displace it, either to complete extinction or to a marginal status in a continually threatened niche.
There is no defense. The laws of nature are open to anyone sufficiently inquisitive. Any technological buttress a threatened species might mount can be overwhelmed by a counterpoised technological means. Offense always trumps defense. Reproduction above replacement rate is absolutely vital to species survival.
Granted, there are organizations that would like to see Mankind vanish from the universe. And granted, there have always been homosexuals, and barren women, and others who cannot or will not produce offspring. Our species can tolerate a small fraction of such. But when that fraction rises above some difficult-to-determine level, we endanger ourselves, both individually and societally.
Individually, quite a lot of aging Boomers who elected not to bear children are discovering what that means to an increasingly infirm adult. Money's only part of it, at least as long as Medicare holds out. Another, generally undervalued aspect of the matter is the sense of insecurity from knowing that one can no longer "do for oneself" in innumerable ways. Even a healthy elderly couple is well advised to avoid certain strenuous chores, as I know from extremely painful recent experience. But what if there are no teenagers in your neighborhood to shovel your driveway, mow your lawn, or mulch your shrubs? What then?
Societally, there remain subgroups of Mankind that reproduce quite rapidly. When one such casts a covetous eye on what your nation enjoys, how do you plan to hold them off? Weapons of mass destruction? Some really neat sterilant in their water? It's really hard to sight a rifle accurately with bifocals on.
You don't like that? You want to be free to enjoy the comforts and pleasures of your "child-free" double-income lifestyle, without having to worry about the consequences of your choices? I won't try to stop you. Indeed, I can't. I can only advise you to watch the barricades. Others who do choose to reproduce will shortly be leaning their ladders and scaling towers against your walls...and you won't like their attitude toward you and your fellow "unbelievers."
I can guarantee that last part.
Grow or die. It's not my concoction; God Himself has decreed it.
The opposite assumption -- that life can be made a vista of limitless yet childless pleasures and indulgences, without adverse consequences -- permeates our culture. Try to name a popular novel or movie that celebrates children and childbearing, or that honors the ancient profession of motherhood. Can you? I can't.
I could go on, but I'll spare you. A man who sees his entire species driving hell-for-leather toward extinction can only do so much. In particular, he has to refrain from blunting his point by hammering it too hard or for too long.
May God bless and keep you all. For as long as we last, anyway.
Comments
A society that maltreats its children; or refuses to have children; or favours the rights of semi-aberrant minorities over eternal, natural verities; is a society that subliminally has a collective suicide wish.
Posted by on 01/31/2010 at 07:35 PMThe Democrat running to take Robert Wexler’s seat is a M.D. named Ben Graber. His campaign literature claims he spent his medical career as a “gynecological surgeon”.
I suppose one could have a whole surgical career doing tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and such and never do too many abortions, but I’m getting the vibe that was not the case with this guy.
Posted by PA on 02/02/2010 at 01:24 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
