Skip to main content

What Are We Talking About?

 Sometimes the mask will slip, and history gives a clean look at an ugly thing, like when Alexander Stephens proclaimed that the Confederacy was fighting for white supremacy. It’s unavoidable; you see it, you can’t unsee it, and how everything shakes out will set a new pattern for how everything will go. When certainty and consensus is achieved, everyone will say that they always agreed with what we’re saying now, though that’s not even close to true.

Most people prefer euphemisms in times like these. They’ll literally invent things that never happened, because a hero on the wrong side of a crossroads like this is intolerable.

Abortion is like this. It’s ugly, it’s tragic, and it’s actually indefensible. But ordinary people who don’t want to face it will talk about “choice” and “bodily autonomy” and literally anything else, because the nature of the thing is too ugly to face directly. 

What is the thing in itself? We’re not saying that choice or bodily autonomy don’t matter in any context; the moral force of the issue is precisely this: the intentional killing of a living human being at an early stage of development.

So it’s today’s version of “states’ rights” or “regional autonomy” or whatever. Do you really want to live in a society where people have rights only to the extent that they can fight for them? The Democratic Party for example, going in a direction where capitalism is proclaimed as bad and always was, but again, they’ve been carrying water for The Man and his silk pockets for decades. Corporations love abortion, because it’s cheaper than caring about whole families.

And this isn’t a love letter to President Trump or his allegedly Catholic Vice President, either. Trump took the plank out of the platform that advocated for the protection of law for the unborn. He’s the one fighting against protections at the state level. That’s the next step, and it always was.

And it’s not a religious conviction, per se. How about this: if you genocide yourselves, you’re bloody stupid, AND you deserve to burn in Hell.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more