Tag Archives: infanticide

A Modern Ireland and Abortion

Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s Prime Minister, spoke the other day about the landslide victory that repealed the Eighth Amendment to Ireland’s Constitution, which made abortion illegal (except in cases involving the health of the mother). It reads: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”  On the side of the repeal, the Prime Minister said, “The people have said that we want a modern constitution for a modern country, that we trust women and we respect them to make the right decision and the right choices about their health care.”  A modern constitution for a modern country. Modern.  If we were speaking of modern in its truest form, then Ireland was already more modern than most westernized nations.  They saw the unborn as a child.  Modern technology backs this claim up.  But it isn’t being used in its truest form. In this case, “modern” is a synonym for “progressive,” in the political sense.  I’m for progress, but often progress in the political sense is more of a regress.  Much of what is in this blog is from a previous blog I wrote on February 3 of last year, with some updated editions/editing.  You can read it in its entirety here.

This is a blog that is simply pointing out that what we now see or call progressive is anything but.  It is in fact regressive.  I see this in life, in sex, and in individuality.The regression of life comes in many forms.  But it all goes back to those political hot words: Culture of Death.  If we were to stop and think about how progressives treat life, it tends to look awfully strange.  It certainly would abhor progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, though perhaps not so much his cousin, FDR.  Think for a moment about the history of the world.  One would typically consider the killing of a child to be barbaric.  It would be considered uncivilized, except it happened in civilized society.  It didn’t happen as much in the form of abortion as in infanticide (which I would not distinguish between the two, except simply on being in utero while the other is out of the womb).  Often in ancient days baby girls were put out with the trash or upon a high wall to die of exposure.  Why?  Simple: she was a girl and girls weren’t as “valuable” as boys.  It was sex selection.

It was eugenics in its primitive state.  It was horrific.  Little babies would die from the cold or from being pecked alive by birds or any numerous ways.  Beyond that though, as horrible as that is, the very thought of setting a baby out to die of exposure is simply beyond the pale.One does not have to go back as far as ancient Rome to find similar practices.  One only needs go back to the World War II era when nearly every nation was dabbling in eugenics, none quite so much as the Third Reich.  Any person considered to be unfit was to be wiped off the planet.  Those with genetic disorders, handicaps, or simply considered an unfit race was to be disposed.  Does any humane person believe that this is the way to go?  Obviously so.  Since developing the ability to detect Down’s Syndrome in the womb, doctors are encouraging parents to abort the child.  While the ultrasound has saved millions of lives, it has also brought us the knowledge of what sex the baby is and so brought in utero sex selective abortions.  Technically, that is illegal in the US, but since there aren’t many laws limiting why an abortion can take place, one only needs to keep their mouth shut as to that, or any other main reason.At the same time there is the euthanasia phenomena going on.  Pardon me, the doctor assisted suicide phenomena.  People are not simply some doe that got hit by a car and need to be put out of their misery.

It used to be thought that humans were the highest created being and that there was something special about them.  No longer.  Progressive thought (or should I say regressive thought) says that humans are no better than an animal.  They need to be put down like the mangy dog at the shelter.  Actually, save the dog, but put the sick human to sleep.  When a person is old or infirmed, the thought goes to euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide. How is abortion or euthanasia a progressive idea?  It seems so regressive.  It is taking us to a time of baseness where we live according to our baser selves.  To the progressive killing in war is savage but killing in womb is salvific; killing an intruder is unjust, but killing the infirmed and old is righteous.

Much of the progressive/regressive culture wanting abortion without limits is also moving for a more sexual culture.  Sex should be unrestrictive (except where it needs to be restricted–rape and incest, etc., which I’ll get to momentarily).  Of course, how can sex be unrestricted if babies get in the way?  One cannot progress far enough sexually until one progresses far enough abortionally.

Once again though, in this sexual culture, we are encouraged to go back to our baser selves.  Self-control used to be a good thing.  To control my body was seen by most civilized people to be laudable, but now it’s laughable.  Progressives teach that it is impossible to teach abstinence in school because they will find a way to have sex anyway.  Shouldn’t we just give them condoms and teach them how to have “safe-sex”? Is this serious thinking?  Is this progressive thought or regressive thought?  Somehow this argument holds water for the progressive for the high schooler (and middle-schooler), but somehow it no longer holds water for the rapist.  This is where the restriction comes in.  The progressive wants his cake and to eat it too.  That simply can’t happen.  One cannot tell a person as they grow up that they don’t need self-control, and then suddenly they have to learn it.  One can’t teach regressive thought of giving in to base desires and then expect that person to honor and respect others and treat them with dignity.

And yes, this is all with the idea of consent.  The two parties must consent, right?  Both parties must consent to giving into baseness.  They both must agree to show no self-control.  Isn’t a lack of self-control barbaric.  A person who cannot tell himself no would be considered a cave-man or barbarian in ages past.  So then, isn’t progressive thought that says that these teens can’t control themselves more regressive than progressive?

But these two thoughts–life and sex–actually come under the big umbrella of individuality.  Progressives want people to think in terms of individual while proclaiming the good of society.  This doesn’t really work.  What might seem okay for an individual would not be good for society as a whole.  For example if a person stole bread because he was hungry, it does him good.  However, it is not good if there is a society of thieves.  Society breaks down.  Progressives are teaching individualism and individuality and parading it around as universalism.

This is why abortion and euthanasia is so prevalent.  The person getting the abortion is thinking about self.  Even those who say that they don’t want to raise a baby in poverty are not thinking so much of the child (there is foster and adoption options).  They are thinking of self.  Those who choose (or encourage) euthanasia are more focused on self.  Of course, no one wants to suffer and no one wants to see a loved one suffer.  But what we should note is that for the one receiving doctor assisted suicide the “I” vocabulary.  I don’t want to suffer.  I don’t want the pain.  I don’t want. . .  For the family of those suffering there is also the “I” vocabulary.  I can’t stand to see them in pain. I can’t watch them go through such a thing.  It is still about I–the individual.

So it is with sex.  I want to have sex with this person so I will have sex with this person (as long as that person consents).  I want multiple partners in my life. I want multiple partners at one time.  I want to experience this type of sex, etc.  It is still about the individual.

What is good for the individual is not always good for society (not that any of this is god for the individual either).  It used to be a virtuous thing to give up individuality and self for the good of others.  Selfishness (individualism) used to be considered a bad thing, a base thing.  Yet today, progressives have taught us that selfishness is good and the good of others is bad (if it impedes with selfishness).  That doesn’t sound progressive to me.  It sounds rather. . .regressive.

All this goes back to my first thought: what we now see or call progressive is anything but.  It is in fact regressive.  This isn’t modern, Prime Minister Varadkar; it’s babaric.

I am sure there are many out there who do not agree with me, and if you are one, you are free to comment.  I simply ask that you do so in a respectful manner.  If you like this post and are in agreement with it, you are more than welcome to share it.