The Cart or the Horse?

In response to the previous post, one person suggested that even if he puts the cart before the horse, as I said, I don’t believe in the cart.  The “cart” is the issue du jour and the “horse” is abortion.  In other words, I’m only interested in the legality of abortion, and I don’t care about what would happen to the millions of children who would now be in the world if it were not for abortion.  If that’s not a disturbingly macabre argument, I don’t know what is.

It’s almost as if abortion is a blessing in disguise, because, well, we really couldn’t deal with all those “extra” people.

The whole problem with talking about health insurance, or torture, or immigration, or whatever other smoke screen a person can throw up to hide the horror of abortuaries all over this country, is that it relies on a false premise: that abortion is roughly equivalent to the problems in those other areas.  I contend that it is not.  The murder of children in their mothers’ wombs is so far beyond anything else that the Left (especially Left-leaning Christians) calls a “moral” issue that the discussion quickly becomes ludicrous.  That is why the issue at hand is constantly changing, and why someone who is supposedly against abortion has so much trouble actually saying that it is wrong and that it needs to be illegal, and damn the consequences.  I don’t care if Nancy Pelosi thinks that contraception and abortion will help the economy.  I don’t care if the lack of abortion would cause overpopulation and crowding (which is false; but aren’t cities crowded by definition?).  If someone came to me and said, either adopt my child or I will have an abortion, there’s no question in my mind what I would do, whether I could “afford” to take care of another child or not.  How can we not afford to?

The whole current preoccupation of far too many Christians is to level off the moral playing field and make every issue where 100 anecdotal people “suffer” (that is in quotation marks because suffering is always relative, and relative to abortion, the point is void) a moral issue that demands our immediate attention.  Sorry, but no.  Enough people are complaining about health care, and it will be taken care of, sooner or later.  Enough people are talking about immigration, and the U.S. will eventually untangle its policy.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end (probably prematurely).  But the slaughter of our brothers and sisters, sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, and neighbors continues unabated, and those who voted for Pres. Obama are complicit in their deaths.

It’s not just another issue, and it’s not comparable to anything else.  Those who say otherwise have numbed themselves to the reality of what’s going on.  They have to answer for their positions and I have to answer for mine.  Perhaps they will be able to stand before their ultimate Judge and claim that they supported the continuation of legalized murder because they couldn’t stand to see one more person have high medical bills, but I can’t.

Timotheos

Advertisements

Abortion Versus Other Issues

First, the title assumes that abortion is just one among “other issues” (sort of like the Lord’s Supper is just one among “other parts of doctrine”).

But how is it that Christians, who admittedly “care” about having fewer abortions, can privilege health care, the ending of war or torture, or being nice to illegal immigrants over the fact that 50,000,000 and counting have died from the legalized murder we call abortion (in itself a euphemism)?  Perhaps it really is the case that one is a tragedy but one (or fifty) million is a statistic (Stalin, anyone?).

The argument goes like this: if we in the United States can guarantee health care and other essentials to women who are “struggling” with whether to have an abortion or not, then they will be less likely to choose to have the abortion because the future will appear so much brighter–like that silly, multi-colored sun on the horizon of possibility.  Hence, better and more affordable health care = fewer abortions.  Hence, also, “vote for Barack Obama.”

Hey, I’d be as glad as the next guy (or girl) to have cheaper insurance and more choices (I currently have to drive an hour to see a dentist who is “in network;” of course, I live in the relative middle of nowhere).  I’d also be happy to see Pres. Obama help struggling people and reduce the number of abortions.  The latter is made far less likely by his promise to sign the FOCA and by giving back money to international organizations that support or do abortions.  (Sorry, what does abortion have to do with helping people?  Of course, the link is clear to Nancy Pelosi and her ContraceptAid bailout.)

Nevertheless, the argument has a certain superficial plausibility to it: if you’re not worried how you’re going to support a child, then maybe you have one.  The problem is, children require more than money.  Not even the best daycare, the best nanny, the best health care, the best insurance is going to reduce the “burden” that children impose.  All that the purveyors of progress have is “hope.”  Now I know that hope is big right now, but hope can only get you so far when it comes to the (sinful) human instinct of self-preservation.  Because if I’ve got no bigger motivation than affordable insurance to make me keep and support a child I didn’t want in the first place, then I’m more than likely not doing it (at least, knowing what I know about three of them).

Even if my child takes less of my money, if I didn’t want her in the first place, that means she’s still taking my money, which I could use to buy a Wii or a nicer house, or a nicer car.  And that’s still unacceptable.  So I’m going to Planned unParenthood, so they can remove the burden.

Can Barack Obama’s policies reduce abortions?  I sincerely hope so.  But I’m not staking anything on it.  If someone can be so sure that the unlimited abortion license and the support of my tax dollars for said license are right, and yet the question about when life begins is above his pay grade, then there is little to no chance he’ll be right about how to help those mothers struggling with the choice.  My guess is that his idea about how to “help” them lines up with NARAL’s, not mine.  And that’s morally, ethically, and democratically unacceptable.  If he does not know basic biology, then he’s either betting (shall we say, hoping?) that it’s not yet a child, or he’s betting that it doesn’t matter.  Either way, he’s not The One I want setting or signing policy that determines what is good for either unborn children or their mothers.

Christians who support policies that they hope will reduce abortions are either naive, or they have bound themselves so tightly to the (il)liberal, Democratic line that they find it impossible to extricate themselves.  They have put the proverbial cart before the horse and are in favor of health care (who isn’t?) that will take care of health that will be non-existent (because the babies are in the dumpster out back).  But hey, their mothers still have opportunity to make a good life for themselves and their (future) children!  Because abortion is still legal in all nine months of pregnancy, and if Pres. Obama makes good on his promises to the radical blood-lust lobby, there will be no restrictions whatsoever.  So go ahead, let the 12-year old abort her baby without her parents’ knowledge.  After all, her crazy, fundamentalist parents will probably kill her if they knew.

Whatever you do, don’t worry your pretty little heads over all the burning babies: health care will be cheap and those crazy Muslims will only blow up themselves!

Timotheos

“Thanks in Part to Mother Nature”

Fitting for the day, don’t you think?

Don’t you just love the sun?
Doesn’t it make you feel good all over?
It’s my pleasure to announce
In conjunction with the Fed
And my recent popularity

Thanks in part to mother nature
It will never rain again
It should do wonders for the GNP

If you’re just joining us now
You missed a brilliant speech
We go now live to the streets
To find out what the voters think
He’s worked a  miracle
I just now bought a brand new car

God bless the Indian summer
God bless the Indian summer
God bless the Indian summer

Pedro the Lion (David Bazan), “Indian Summer,” Control

Timotheos

Like Democracy? (Part 2)

If you think votes actually count the first time, you’re wrong.  Votes only count if Democrats say they should count.  Although Minnesota Democrats must be better organized than Washington ones, because it took Washington three recounts to elect Christine Gregoire, while it only took Minnesota one.  (Re-re-re-elect Rossi!)

Makes you wonder about the integrity of every election across the country.  Why are they so sure they got things right this time?  The first count yielded just over a 200-vote margin in favor of Coleman, which triggered an automatic recount.  Why doesn’t this 200+ margin trigger another recount?  And where were 400+ votes hiding in the original count?  Absentee ballots that were ruled out?  Why did nearly all of them favor Franken?  It defies rational thought.

Minnesota elected a professional wrestler, and now they’ve “elected” a professional joker.  Make ya feel good, Minnesotans?  Take it to the Supreme Court, Norm!

If you have an inordinate amount of extra time, you can browse the challenged ballots here.  (I’m just glad my ballot isn’t there.)

UPDATE: You knew it was coming:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman said Reid hoped Coleman would accept defeat.

“Now that the bipartisan state canvassing board has certified Al Franken as the winner, we hope Senator Coleman respects its decision and does not drag this out for months with litigation,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. “Shortly after Election Day, Coleman criticized Mr. Franken for wanting a recount and wasting taxpayer money. Now that it is clear he lost, Coleman should follow his own advice and not subject the people of Minnesota to a costly legal battle.”

If it is the Democrat who does not concede and allow the initial results to stand, it’s the Republican who is “criticizing.”  If it is the Republican who thinks that not everything was done correctly, he “should follow his own advice.”  You simply cannot win with these people.

Timotheos