Thursday, March 15, 2007

Moral Outrage Against the Ruthless Slaughter and Savage Butchery of Child-Killing (aka Abortion)

These remarks came from a dialogue with an agnostic, mostly about the Inquisition, but also secondarily about the inconsistency of abortion with a "humane" and "tolerant" liberal secularism (supposedly concerned for the welfare of the poor, oppressed, and most innocent and helpless among us.

* * * * *

Of course I must point out the manifest absurdity of any modern criticizing the Church over these centuries-old scandals when every day in America 4000 innocent preborn children are being ruthlessly and legally slaughtered in their mother's wombs (some as they are emerging fully-formed out of their mother's wombs -- they get to have their brains sucked out by "enlightened," "progressive" "doctors"). I think a little moral balance and a spreading out of righteous indignation is called for here. Even the Code of Hammurabi in 1800 B.C. from Babylonia condemned abortion.

It is both morally and logically ridiculous and outrageous to take pot shots at the centuries-old Catholic Inquisition in an ostensible discussion of moral philosophy when a far more hideous and unjust Inquisition and Holocaust (indeed, genocide: war against the class of preborn persons) takes place in our midst every day. As I seek to apply the justice of my position equally, I can't possibly discuss one form of persecution without also discussing the other.

But we can't see today -- as a society -- the clear wrongness, injustice, and outrage of abortion. And virtually the only motivation for abortion is personal convenience, expedience, and the Almighty dollar. At least the Church in the Middle Ages had a worthy motive for persecuting those they felt to be heretics. Right or wrong, their motive was to protect other souls from being led astray and possibly winding up in hell. That's a far cry from the motive of sexual license without responsibility, or the monetary motive of the abortionist. You see the fruit of Christianity and a powerful Church (long since corrected and reformed). I see the fruit of humanism and secularism and post-modernism -- very much ongoing and showing little sign of being open to moral reason and rudimentary notions of justice or rights, where the preborn are concerned.


We have over 65 million or so executions a year worldwide of preborn children: for what motive? I have already detailed my opinion on that . . . Now we have pushes for legalized euthanasia, and we have infanticide. Meanwhile, "liberals" go around protesting about capital punishment (which the Catholic Church opposes in virtually all cases) and the treatment of animals and trees and the ozone layer . . .


I have also sought to demonstrate by analogical argument that the "abortion Inquisition" so championed by secularism is far more in violation of basic moral principles (pagan and Christian alike) than the Inquisition ever was. That's why I keep talking about abortion. Pro-aborts never want to talk about it -- and I fully understand why. The Christian is concerned about the oppression of the weak and lowly. Who is more weak and lowly and defenseless than a preborn child? So I'm just being a good "liberal," as that word used to be defined.


The ultimate crime now isn't heresy, but the killing of an abortionist. That deserves an immediate death penalty, as it is a direct affront to the dogmatic status quo of our radical feminist culture of death and extreme individual license -- above all in matters sexual. I don't sanction the murder of abortionists whatsoever (nor does my Church). But I find it interesting that secular society mimics the very behavior it ostensibly finds reprehensible when carried out by the Church (i.e., capital punishment), for far superior motives, by and large. We found heresy extremely threatening to the Christian society we sought to establish. The secularist today finds the killing of an abortionist the most threatening thing to its little diabolical kingdom of this world, ultimately ruled by Satan.

Not only that; the secular establishment also regarded peaceful Operation Rescue (of which I was a part) as an extreme threat, to be dealt with in the most repressive way possible legally (regarding us as quasi-terrorists). In fact, rescue was part of a long and honored tradition of civil disobedience in America, starting with abolitionism (Thoreau, the Quakers, etc.), the dissent of organized labor (Reuther, AFL-CIO et al), the civil rights movement (Martin Luther King -- a Baptist pastor), and the anti-war movement (Vietnam). But such conscientious dissent must not be allowed for a second to interfere with the unbridled "right" to sexual license and the multi-billion dollar child-killing industry.

So there have been two developments with regard to the place of heresy in relation to civil society and the harmfulness to individuals. The secularists have adopted relativism and concluded that, as there is no truth to be ascertained in matters spiritual and theological (indeed, in anything at all, closely examined), therefore "heresy" is a meaningless concept, and any belief goes, as long as it doesn't advocate harm to others (excluding preborn children, and "unwanted" handicapped or elderly).


In the very act of condemning coercion and "forced morality," the secularist thinks nothing of forcing the life out of a ten-week-old preborn child, who is fully-formed, who feels pain, who is genetically and essentially a human being, who has no idea why it should be subjected to such brutal savagery. The poor child's mother or father couldn't keep their clothes on or engage in sexual discipline, so the child must be sacrificed on the altar of sexual "freedom."

This is the sacrament of the culture of death; the high religious rite. And now a fully-formed child has its brains sucked out, on the grounds that it is not yet human, not having fully emerged from the womb; therefore it has no rights, and can be barbarously slaughtered by a so-called "doctor." I shudder to think at the frightful recesses of hell reserved for people who commit such heinous acts (and I refer to the butcher, not the woman -- though her responsibility in this instance is all the greater, too). We need to pray for them with all vigor and compassion.


Millions of murders don't seem to particularly matter to the secularist and liberal pro-aborts, once their principle of the "right to abortion" is adopted. Hundreds of millions of legal abortions having been committed already. If you can morally murder one child, why not 100 million; a billion? a trillion? every child? The devil is consistent with his own diabolical logic and ethics.


So-called "pro-choice" "tolerance" says: "you have every right to be pro-life as long as you agree that we have the right to continue to kill the babies . . . " Of course they would actually use a self-soothing euphemism such as "terminate the pregnancy" . . . . . But I myself like to be precise in my language. As long as you worship at the altar of "diversity" and the Sexual Revolution, and radical feminism, and the Culture of Death, and liberal political views, everything's fine. Don't make any waves, don't bring that fanatic "religious jargon" into the public square.


What's more an "invasion of privacy" than a butcher coming into your mother's womb to slaughter you?

Compiled from e-mail exchanges between Dave Armstrong and an agnostic; June 1999. Uploaded in this form on 21 December 2003.

No comments: