Thursday, January 23, 2014

Share on Google PlusTwitterHootsuiteHootsuiteLinkedInBufferFacebookCustom Sharing Tool

I find it extremely encouraging that after all this time, I’m still taken aback by the moral obscenity ofstatements like the following:

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.  We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.  And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.  Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

There’s not much ambiguity in that statement, is there?  There’s no nod to the ethical “difficulties” surrounding this issue; indeed there is no acknowledgement that such ethical difficulties exist at all.
“Unintended pregnancies,” after all, are events that, according to this statement, need to be reduced.  One of those unintended pregnancies brought Your Editor into the world but I’ll bite.  Why do unintended pregnancies need to be reduced?  Because women should never ever, to quote the President’s own words, be “punished by a baby.”

1973 is when life in this country truly became cheap.  And why wouldn’t it have?   If I don’t get to be a human being unless you decide that I am one, then why should those who happened to win the life lottery mean anything whatsover?

It was right around 1973 that watching people die, sometimes in horrifying ways, on movie screens became mass entertainment on a scale never known before.  Obscenity and profanity in popular movies and music began to be the rule rather than the exception.  And the American news media had to be dragged kicking and screaming even to acknowledge Kermit Gosnell, never mind covering his trial.

What’s the tally up to now?  56,000,000?

Roe v. Wade had other unintended consequences.  The Anglican chicken-egg question is exactly when the Anglican Communion started south into apostasy.  Some say the 1930 birth control ruling, others say women’s ordination while others blame Gene Robinson.

I’ll make a case for January, 1973.  Because that was the time when Whatever I Want, Whenever I Want It stopped being a spoiled child’s temper tantrum and started becoming an patently-obvious issue of “justice.”
So it should not be surprising that the first women to be illicitly “ordained” in the Episcopal Organization were “ordained” the following year.  Nor should it shock anyone that the Episcopalians were quite happy to dynamite the Anglican Communion in order to give Robbie a pointy hat and a hooked stick.

Because the groundwork had been laid in 1973.

No comments: