The Giveaway Headline

     Sometimes, you really don’t need to read any further:

Late-Term Abortion: A Complex Moral Debate in America

     Among the most regular of motifs one can find in the contest over abortion is the contention that it’s “complex.” “A complex subject.” “A complex debate.” “Legally complex.” And each of those formulations has at least some measure of validity. But not this one: “A complex moral debate.”

     Morals are about right and wrong, no? The dividing line that separates what you may from what you mustn’t. That cannot be complex. A specific act is on one side or the other; it cannot be in both places at once.

     Pro-choicers who are “troubled” by late-term abortions have begun to feel a tickle from their consciences. The six-month-old fetus looks very much like what we’ll call him on the other side of the womb: a human baby. It’s not possible to convince oneself that he’s not a human being with a right to life merely because of where he currently resides. And with that, the conscience pangs begin.

     Pro-lifers are strong proponents of ultrasound imaging for that reason among others: Look at what you’re proposing to kill. Confront the reality. Once the mother-to-be has done so, how could she serenely contemplate snuffing him out before he can draw a breath?

     But we should not stop at the appearance alone. While most people have no serious interest in philosophical questions, there’s one that’s too germane to the abortion controversy to be waved aside: If he’s recognizably a baby today, what was he before this?

     The legal aspects of forbidding abortion after some point in gestation are complex, owing to Fourth Amendment-derived rules about bodily privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality. The morality of the matter is not – no matter on which side of the dividing line you prefer to put it.

1 comment

  1. No moral code?

    So nice of you to invite me to reiterate a point I have made many times before. The Death Cult has a moral code, it is simply based upon a pagan paradigm. For them human life that is deemed beyond useful has no further right to life. Indeed, they deem the planet’s “limited” resources to be endangered by too much of only that single resource — human life.

    You are far more able to argue my point, and you long ago promised to consider it. But with this post you simply stand by our moral code and do not flush out their deadly one, insisting they are in violation only of ours, not even acknowledging their warped one.

    And what is even worse, it gives comfort to the worst cretins. Hiding behind the lines of the implementers are the forces that hate man and the very notion of the Creator because, if He exists, man is His ultimate creation. Belief in His existence competes with them being treated as the gods they think they are.

    You have more than once given a hint of their existence:

    Ehrlich: “[Cold Fusion:] It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet!”
    Rifkin: “It would be like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”

    However, you only tied their hysteria to them wanting to limit our energy supply. What you did not go onto relate, despite the death cult’s existence being the topic, is that the misanthropes would lose their “moral” underpinning: their claims that too many humans deplete “limited” resources.

    We know that once nuclear fusion is harnessed, all our waste products could be metamorphosed into whatever elements are needed. Then normal chemistry allows us to manufacture any needed substance.

    Such monsters live outside both moral codes but get a free pass because their raison d’être aids the enemy who’s in power.

    In my view, Western man, if he still exists, needs to see this as a religious war. Is human life sacred or not? We would not have advanced as far as we have without that underlying morality — do nothing to others you would not want done to you — no matter how many times “we” have breached it.

    You would be right if the enemy has not time and time again supported arguments that reveal they live by this neo-pagan moral code. They’ll infer from your argument that they have no morals, and it only makes them laugh because their “moral” code is never attacked per se. They do not need to defend it.

    This oversight by our side constantly frustrates me. We should acknowledge that our morality is superior just as CS Lewis argued against Duelism: that because evil defends itself in terms of the good it claims for itself, that there has to be a higher power, and that is the Good. With their paradigm we would still be in the Dark Ages, and their neo-paganism is on track to create a new, worse one.

    I fear I am beating a dead horse. If in twenty years I’ve not convinced you that this is a probable view of the situation, then today will be no different.

Comments have been disabled.