Abortion: the modern death cult that rejects Nature

By embracing today’s abortion Death Cult up to and including birth, the self-identified party of science and Nature rejects both science and Nature.

Abortion is in the news again as some states legalize it up to the moment of birth while other states already have or are talking about limiting it to the moment before the first detectable heartbeat. Those who oppose abortion talk about the rights of “preborn” babies; those who support abortion talk about women in chains, enslaved to white male legislators. Although I started out my political life as completely pro-abortion, at a certain point I realized — quite reluctantly, I might add — that the anti-abortion people had the better argument because . . . science or, more accurately, Nature.

One of the things that the Left is always anxious to impress on the world is that it is the party of science. It dons this mantle because it sees science as something that stands in opposition to religion. to Leftists, religion — at least conservative Christianity and Judaism — is about blind, mindless faith. Its adherents owe fealty to texts that are 2,000 or more years old, going back to a time when humans were primitive and had no understanding about how the world worked at a scientific level. It was a world of magic and invisible, malignant forces that showered people with an invariably inexplicable, random brew of life and death, love and hate, and good and evil.

Faith, therefore, is bad because it’s inherently irrational and illiterate about the world around us.

In addition to embracing “science” (which I always imagine Leftists saying the way it’s said in Thomas Dolby’s 80’s hit “She Blinded Me With Science“), the Left has also embraced Nature (said in the same tone, I’m sure as “science”). They do so in part because Genesis gives man dominion over Nature and works assiduously to distinguish humans from other animals, and in part because capitalist and colonialist oppression are seen as enemies to the untouched wonders of communist, indigenous nature. (Ironically, of course, communist countries have been blights on their lands and poor indigenous people care only about getting enough food in the here and now, which often means treating their environment very badly.)

In theory — and often in fact — it’s entirely possible to balance religion, science, and Nature. Problems arise when there are overlaps. For religious people, when science and Nature crash into each other, or crash into religion, it’s religion which, even if it’s not a practical guide, offers moral guidance. For Leftists, though, who operate without that moral religious foundation,* when science and Nature clash, they look not to God, but to politics — and, more specifically, to identity politics as their guide.

It’s this abandonment of an overarching morality that leads to the self-styled party of science and Nature taking ridiculous stands, such as saying that a person’s sex exists on a continuum largely affected by external factors, never mind that genetically there are only two sexes. Likewise, politics also assures Leftists that the fetus is totally unrelated to a baby. Neither science nor Nature dictate either of those stances. Only politics does.

“Politics as God” also explains how the party of science and Nature completely rejects the fact that, at a core, biological, animal level (and remember,to them, we are one with Nature’s animals), it’s so unfair that women have to bear children that this reality too must be rejected. Because really, that’s what all the abortion arguments boil down to: It’s not fair that men can walk away from sex while women end up with what one Leftist author calls “the incredible violence of pregnancy.” It’s not fair that men can walk away from the baby but that women, once the baby is born, find themselves responsible for caring for it. And yes, women can and do walk away, but most don’t. Once the baby is born, Nature makes sure that women’s chemical make-up sees them sticking with it.

It’s Nature, not a bunch of “old white men,” who decreed that women are the vessels of procreation, with all the upsides (creating a life, loving a child) and downsides (loss of control over her body, pain, illness, etc.), that come with it. Thankfully, it’s science that has reduced maternal mortality to infinitesimal numbers in the modern era, as well as introducing the wonders of the epidural.

Science also proves absolutely that there is a complete continuum from conception to birth and beyond. That’s why any scientific mind has to laugh at the author to whom I linked above who writes “I am intimately acquainted with, and sometimes sympathetic to, the conviction that life begins at conception—the idea that a clump of tissue, generated even under the most unfortunate and cruel of circumstances, shows God working the most sacred miracle on Earth.” You see what she did there: The Nature-created, science-confirmed moment when the continuum of life begins has been divorced from both Nature and science. Now, instead of being a fact, a reality, it’s merely a “conviction.” Only in the anti-Science world of the pro-abortion left does one have irrefutable biological fact transmuted into a “conviction” tied to religion.

Finally, it’s morality — Biblical morality — that holds that, just because Nature is unfair to women, that unfairness doesn’t give women the automatic, unfettered right to snuff out the life they are incubating.

As religious people know, the Bible is not about fairness. As I’ve said often, the Old Testament is about justice, while the New Testament is about grace.  Only Marxism is about “fairness” — except that this ostensible fairness is always based upon a zero sum game in which one person’s “fair” victory is another person’s loss — with the loss determined as “fair” provided that it furthers Marxism’s political ends.

Nature is unfeeling. Nature does not care that the lion, rather than lying down with the sweet lamb, usually eats it. Nature does not care that a drought that starve countries or that an earthquake can level kingdoms. Nature simply is . . . it’s a relentless, unfair force in which living species’ prime directive is to cling to life in whatever way they can. Religion tempers that prime directive with morality. Marxism tempers that prime directive with raw power and selfishness.

That’s how you end up with a large segment of the American population arguing that it’s entirely “moral” to kill a human life for someone else’s convenience — an argument that sounds remarkably like the Nazi justification for the gas chambers. After all, once you decide that certain lives in the abstract are valueless, it’s as easy to kill them as it is to stomp a termite.

Incidentally, what I just said does not mean I’m opposed either to just wars or to the death penalty. People can be called to account for things they’ve done (such as cold-bloodedly murdering someone) and for allegiances they formed (such as joining ISIS for the joy of conquest, rape, and totalitarian control).** But to kill humans simply for “being,” unrelated entirely to their choices — well, Biblical morality doesn’t square well with that approach.

On abortion, Leftists think they’re taking a stand for women and against the patriarchal God of the Bible. What they’re really doing, is screaming against Nature’s unfairness and, in their effort to show their dominance over Nature, more and more openly embracing the same path the Nazis did: Namely, declaring that certain humans aren’t human at all but are, instead, inconveniences, encumbrances, and parasites, and therefore entirely deserving of being snuffed out.

This is how you get from an anguished “safe, rare, and legal” to the view of Princeton’s chaired “ethicist,” Peter Singer, that parents should have up to a month after birth to decided whether to terminate their infant. Singer’s idea is based upon parents confronted with serious genetic imperfections or birth defects that would make raising a child unduly difficult or expensive. However, once you give parents the right to determine whether a child’s life is worth cultivating or deserves execution, that viewpoint easily extends to cover the “imperfections” of parental exhaustion, frustration, and inconvenience. It’s a slippery, steep slope from “safe, rare, and legal” to Sparta and Nazi Germany.

I’ll go back to my starting point, which is that I grew up completely embracing the Leftist view that it’s not fair that the pleasures of sex are always pleasurable for men but, for women, can have life shattering consequences. What maturity has brought me is an understanding that life isn’t fair because Nature isn’t fair. We can recognize that fact, that scientific reality, by turning ourselves into monsters, or by embracing the inevitable and folding a respect for life into our world view and our actions.

*I know that there are Leftists who regularly attend church or temple. However, when political values crash into religious values, it’s always the religious values that yield. An extreme example is the Lefty who called Jesus a drag queen pedophile to harmonize religion with his own world view. You can see here a more centrist Leftist approach to Jesus, which puts a Marxist spin on everything, in order to create a Christian theocracy that would come as a big surprise to the original writers of the Old and New Testaments.

** I understand that innocent people invariably get swept into the maelstrom of wars into which their leaders drag them. Not every person who donned the German uniform was a Nazi. Some were naive souls fighting for an abstract “Fatherland” unrelated to the Nazis. Others were conscripts who had the choice of certainly being executed in a prison yard for refusing to serve or taking the chance that they could survive the battlefields. One of the many hells of war is that it’s a nation’s leaders that make the choices and the nation’s soldiers, only some of whom are true believers, with most of them being just fodder, doing the dying.

[give_form id=”59195″]