When it comes to cats and dogs, people will go to enormous lengths to find them new homes or help them medically. And when they do “terminate” them, it’s usually because they’re sick anyway.
Unborn children? They are killed with no questions asked.
I know that some animal rights types *do* feel some affinity for the unborn; feminists however, feel none. They simply do not care if the baby dies, and will never admit the slightest amount of pity for him. Because they know their movement rests on dehumanizing the unborn…
What abortion is about is the freedom to engage in a risky recreational activity and to terminate the life of a separate, distinct human being who is a victim of the irresponsible choices of grown-ups who ought to know better. It’s about killing the weak and helpless so that the strong are not inconvenienced by additional mouths to feed, which diminishes their selfish pursuit of pleasure. (And secular leftists complain about greedy capitalists – but at least capitalists don’t murder innocent children out of greed).
What moral relativism means
ECM sent me a brilliant post from David Thompson, that made me think of what secular leftists do after jettisoning real moral rules like “don’t kill innocent people without justification”. Read the post, then reflect on how moral relativists try to cover up their selfish hedonism in front of others by agonizing over fashionable causes and moral dilemmas. It’s just an example of screaming “me too!” to religious people, even though morality is not rationally grounded without God.
People who reject the objective morality that comes from God will go on to invent a new morality that they find easier to accept. Typically it will involve embracing things like animal rights, recycling, vegetarianism or yoga. But if you ask a leftist to curtail their sexual desires to protect children, (born and unborn), then you can forget about it – they won’t do it. The whole point of atheism is to pursue pleasure apart from moral obligations.
Consider Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama’s pick for the head of the Department of Homeland Security.
According to a report produced in April 2009 by the DHS, conservative Americans who are pro-life and pro-marriage, and who believe in the Constitution, federalism and the rule of law are potential terrorists.
Here’s a refresher of what the report was about from US News & World Report.
… Napolitano’s department prepared a report for state and local police officials titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Little more than a nine-page screed against phantoms, the report purports to address potential threats from religious and racial hate groups as well as “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.” The report also singles out for special consideration anti-abortion activists, gun owners, immigration opponents and… returning veterans.
Here she is on CNN talking about how returning Iraq war veterans are potential terrorists.
And consider this story where she refuses to say the word terrorism in her remarks to Congress.
Excerpt:
Napolitano is the first homeland security secretary to drop the term “terror” and “vulnerability” from remarks prepared for delivery to the House Homeland Security Committee, according to a copy obtained by The Associated Press.
Tom Ridge, who headed the agency when it was launched in 2003, mentioned terrorism 11 times in his prepared statement at his debut before the oversight committee in 2003. And in 2005 Michael Chertoff, the second secretary, mentioned terrorism seven times, according to an AP analysis of the prepared testimonies.
Does she strike you as grounded in reality? Or ideology?
And now she says that “the system worked”
I’ve posted all this background to introduce Napolitano’s latest comments of the recent terrorist attack, that Al-Quaeda is taking reponsibility for, and that the DHS failed to prevent.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has created controversy over her remarks that “The system worked” on CNN’s “State of the Union”. She was referring to the terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit.
“The system worked”, she says. This, in spite of the following facts:
The terrorist’s name, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, was on the tied list of potential terrorists.
Abdulmutallab’s father reported his son had been recruited and trained by al Qaida to the United States Embassy in Lagos, Nigeria.
Abdulmutallab is not permitted into the UK because of terrorist concerns.
Abdulmutallab may have been allowed on board without a passport. Witnesses in the gate area allege he was introduced by a well-dressed man as a Sudanese refugee seeking sanction in the United States.
Homeland Security cleared the passenger list before NW253 departed.
But “the system worked”!
Maybe the system is only designed to prevent terrorist attacks from”right-wing extremists”? I really don’t know. What I do know is that the DHS will not be effective if they believe in an alternate “Michael Moore” parallel universe, where Rush Limbaugh is actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks instead of Osama Bin Laden.
Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents.
[…]American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.
Elections matter, so let’s remember Janet Napolitano the next time we have to vote in 2010. The only way to deal with Napolitano is by voting Democrats out and putting some grown-ups in to handle things like the economy, health care, and national security.
But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds.
Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl… It’s a small daily tragedy that we animals must kill to stay alive. Plants are the ethical autotrophs here, the ones that wrest their meals from the sun. Don’t expect them to boast: they’re too busy fighting to survive.
So, plants are people, too, and we shouldn’t do violence to them by eating them. Interesting… But you know who doesn’t deserve protection from violence, according to the secular left? Unborn children, that’s who. I don’t see them mentioned in this NYT article.
In fact, the left wants to use government power to stop conscience rights for pro-life doctors, and even the public expression of pro-life convictions. (H/T Lex Communis)
Don’t forget all the pro-life clubs that are banned across Canada. But maybe plants have a right to life, because maybe they feel pain.
People on the secular left like recreational sex, but they don’t like having unexpected mouths to feed. They want the pleasure of sex, but not the work of taking care of innocent little babies. To feel less guilty about killing babies, they have to invent a new morality that blesses something else they want to do as morally good, like recycling, animal rights activism or vegetarianism. It’s idolatry – inventing a god of your own that you can appease just by doing anything you want.