Dear Hannah,
Wisdom is a balancing of pros and cons, and the controversy over abortion isn't an exception to the rule. My reasoning against abortions is that I've seen too many pictures of aborted babies. My reasoning for it is I've met too many horrible adults.
Despite this, all moral weight here seems to reside in the cons -- a fact we know because you can't tell a pro-choice woman you wish she'd been aborted. They consider it bad form; and in all my experience dealing with people they consider it a wish they'd been murdered. You'd think a consistent response would be "thank you." We break with our ideals so that they don't have to break with theirs. But they do break with theirs in the objection, and they do it with every ounce of self-righteousness they'd have if they hadn't. The whole thing is backward and it makes you sad for humanity -- or at least for those of us who have to deal with leftists.
Case in point: a few days ago Tomi Lahren, a hot blonde known only for yelling at liberals on the internet, was fired by her conservative network for supporting abortion. Despite remaining on the payroll she proceeded to sue Glenn Beck for (please don't laugh) wrongful termination.
Wisdom is a balancing of pros and cons, and the controversy over abortion isn't an exception to the rule. My reasoning against abortions is that I've seen too many pictures of aborted babies. My reasoning for it is I've met too many horrible adults.
Despite this, all moral weight here seems to reside in the cons -- a fact we know because you can't tell a pro-choice woman you wish she'd been aborted. They consider it bad form; and in all my experience dealing with people they consider it a wish they'd been murdered. You'd think a consistent response would be "thank you." We break with our ideals so that they don't have to break with theirs. But they do break with theirs in the objection, and they do it with every ounce of self-righteousness they'd have if they hadn't. The whole thing is backward and it makes you sad for humanity -- or at least for those of us who have to deal with leftists.
Case in point: a few days ago Tomi Lahren, a hot blonde known only for yelling at liberals on the internet, was fired by her conservative network for supporting abortion. Despite remaining on the payroll she proceeded to sue Glenn Beck for (please don't laugh) wrongful termination.
We thought she was pro-choice and we were wrong. She's pro-choice if the choice is being made by a woman. She's against choice if you're a man. She's against it specifically if you're a boss. She says she's for liberty when she meant she's against life; and she says you can take a life but only if the life is your child's. What a world we live in.
There are of course other ways of getting rid of children. One of Moses' most controversial laws says, in effect, that if a child's so rotten that his parents can't stand him they can take him to the council and tell everyone how rotten he is and the council can stone him. Somehow this seems worse than abortion when it's a million times better. With abortion you have no idea who you're killing. In ancient Israel you knew exactly who you were killing and you hated him. With abortion the child is 100% innocent. In Israel the child was probably guilty. I think they call this an "honor killing." If this is the case they ought to call an abortion a dishonorable killing*.
That any parent could ever come to this point is a testament to the fairness of Moses' law (I wonder whether it was ever even enforced); and the sentiments of parents for their children are an adequate security for the life of the child. After all, how many losers have we met in our lifetimes? The half-wits and sub-humans who grow up raping our women and robbing our friends and rallying for horrible causes, whose mothers still cry for them in court and say that they're innocent? Millions. They comprise almost the entirety of our news stories.
We say there are faces only mothers can love and we're right. We haven't gone far enough. There are souls that only a mother could love. And there are souls that even a mother could hate. Moses allowed the person who's least likely to kill a child a right to end the matter and save all of us before it got out of hand. We call this barbaric while letting mothers kill children they're most likely to love. Now consider all this and tell me whose head is all backward: Moses's? Or Tomi Lahren's?
Your father,
-J
*My father refused to fire phosphorous shells on the Viet-Cong because they were sleeping -- he passed the joy off to another yahoo on ship. How much worse is cutting a poor baby in utero to pieces? With the former you can compare it to stealing candy from a baby. But what are you supposed to compare the latter to?
My take on killing the sleeping Viet-Cong is slightly different from my father's, and coincides more closely with the Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz. In 1967 he was asked what it felt like to take a human life. His answer: "I wouldn't know. I've only ever killed communists."
There are of course other ways of getting rid of children. One of Moses' most controversial laws says, in effect, that if a child's so rotten that his parents can't stand him they can take him to the council and tell everyone how rotten he is and the council can stone him. Somehow this seems worse than abortion when it's a million times better. With abortion you have no idea who you're killing. In ancient Israel you knew exactly who you were killing and you hated him. With abortion the child is 100% innocent. In Israel the child was probably guilty. I think they call this an "honor killing." If this is the case they ought to call an abortion a dishonorable killing*.
That any parent could ever come to this point is a testament to the fairness of Moses' law (I wonder whether it was ever even enforced); and the sentiments of parents for their children are an adequate security for the life of the child. After all, how many losers have we met in our lifetimes? The half-wits and sub-humans who grow up raping our women and robbing our friends and rallying for horrible causes, whose mothers still cry for them in court and say that they're innocent? Millions. They comprise almost the entirety of our news stories.
We say there are faces only mothers can love and we're right. We haven't gone far enough. There are souls that only a mother could love. And there are souls that even a mother could hate. Moses allowed the person who's least likely to kill a child a right to end the matter and save all of us before it got out of hand. We call this barbaric while letting mothers kill children they're most likely to love. Now consider all this and tell me whose head is all backward: Moses's? Or Tomi Lahren's?
Your father,
-J
*My father refused to fire phosphorous shells on the Viet-Cong because they were sleeping -- he passed the joy off to another yahoo on ship. How much worse is cutting a poor baby in utero to pieces? With the former you can compare it to stealing candy from a baby. But what are you supposed to compare the latter to?
My take on killing the sleeping Viet-Cong is slightly different from my father's, and coincides more closely with the Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz. In 1967 he was asked what it felt like to take a human life. His answer: "I wouldn't know. I've only ever killed communists."
A lot of pain and heartache -- including his mother/enabler fearing that he might assault her -- might have been averted had that "barbaric" Mosaic law been applied to my uncle.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'd not thought of that angle, but....
DeleteMr. Egerer, you did know the "child" in that Mosaic law would be some sort of adult, didn't you? I looked up the Bible Gateway link you were good enough to provide, and saw that the giveaway is "drunkard." Minors in the ancient world wouldn't be drunkards. This is like the passage where God sends bears to maul "youths" for insulting Elisha. The "youths" are teenage or young adult punks, not small children.
ReplyDelete