The left is all atwitter, literally, over Alabama saying that it's wrong for a woman to kill her unborn child for any reason other than to save her own life.
They say that's extreme.
They say that not condoning the unnecessary killing of a perfectly innocent unborn girl is extreme.
Yet those same leftists condemn the execution of a vicious serial killer because he might, might, be innocent or even more extremely just on general principles.
The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty when it is unnecessary to protect society because it realizes that killing is the solution of last resort; something to be done only when nothing else will work.
The left often proclaims the same philosophy in arguing against any sort of killing ranging from police officers killing in self-defense to attacks on terrorists who are plotting to kill civilians.
But the left supports abortion, the killing of what science tells us is a human being and who common sense tells us is innocent, even though only time abortion is the only thing that will work is when the mother’s life is in danger; an exception preserved in the Alabama law.
What accounts for this bizarre disparity; killing is ok for the innocent unborn but wrong for terrorists and serial killers?
The left's hatred of women; to the left women are objects to be used not people to be loved and babies make the cost of using women too high. It's also true that some "feminists", and many men, have been culturally conditioned to view babies as burdens rather than blessings and hence they view their children as a hated foe that would prevent them from achieving their goals in life.
By nature women are far more monogamous than men. The sexually voracious woman championed by modern "feminists" is nothing more than a teen age boy's fantasy promulgated by males, like Weinstein, who never grew up to be men.
Whether you believe that women are naturally monogamous and reluctant to engage in casual sex is due to God or to evolution or both it makes great sense for women to be monogamous.
Aside from the obvious fact that women risk a lot more, i.e. pregnancy, every time they have sex than men do there's the deep truth that women's greater propensity for love and lower propensity for violence are rooted in their love for their spouse and their children. It's hardly surprising that highly promiscuous women, victims of cultural indoctrination these days, are less loving and less like the epitome of women than women who follow their nature.
From a purely evolutionary perspective women who demanded fidelity from their mate were much more likely to send their genes, and their mate’s genes, into the future because pregnant women, and their children, who aren't being helped by a mate are much less likely to survive.
God doesn't command sexual restraint to prove that He's boss; He does so because promiscuity is bad for us all; men and women. We are all looking for love, not just sex, and when we confuse sex with love we end up never finding true love and hence never find true happiness.
But the left is all about hedonism and satisfying one's urges not about truly loving someone. Hence for the left's agenda to work babies have to be literally excised from the calculus of sex.
Effectively the left is waging a war on women's very nature for women are designed-- once again by God, evolution, or both-- to have babies and to raise them.
And what can be more hateful than to tell a woman that her very nature is wrong?
You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obviousand feel free to follow him on Twitter
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment