RE: Re: Carter condemns abortion culture
Well, I don't know who your 'pro-abortion' friends are, but if you're referring to pro-choice folks...
I always find it vastly ironic when pro-aborts hide behind the pro-choice euphemism. As Thomas Sowell points out, this is preemptive language common to all liberal-speak (Sowell calls them "the anointed"). It is a meaningless phrase intended to preempt and avoid debate on the actual topic it is intended to hide. To characterize the murder of an unborn child by dismemberment or chemical incineration as a "choice" is disingenuous at best. There is no practical, societal, cultural, philosophical, or spiritual difference between aborting an unborn child and putting a gun to the temple of a two-year-old and pulling the trigger.
What I took away from it was that while he feels that abortion is inherently wrong, we as a culture aren't doing our best to minimize it but are doing a great job of condemning it.
I'm not sure what alternate universe exists in which a crowd of liberals can simply wish an abhorrent behavior would go away and it happens. Obviously this is not that universe. Furthermore, only in this alternate liberal universe is it wrong, destructive, or useless to condemn an abhorrent behavior. In this mythical land we can dislike, abhor, and avoid any bad behavior, but we must not condemn it. Once again, simply wishing it away would be sufficient to make it stop.
One of his points included a discussion of a successful awareness campaign in Uganda...
Ah, the ubiquitous "awareness campaign." Operating in this alternate liberal universe, one can simply explain to the benighted that they are doing wrong and because the liberal anointed are so obviously superior, the benighted will instantly cease and desist. Of course, in this universe that is not the case. And as with all of the liberal anointed's solutions, success is gauged solely on their criteria or no criteria at all. Since the AIDS pandemic rages on unabated in Uganda, one can only wonder what is meant by "successful."
...dubbed 'ABC,' conceived to combat the spread of AIDS and to encourage family planning; 'ABC' stands for 'abstinence,' 'be faithful,' and 'condom use,' and is emphasized in that order.
Of course abstinence and heterosexual monogamy preclude the need for use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, but that is a reality that doesn't function in the alternate liberal universe. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly and scientifically demonstrated that using a condom to prevent AIDS is roughly as effective as using gauze to keep out rain, but I digress...
Carter expressed that President Bush's 'abstinence only' campaigns are unrealistic thus ineffective in our own culture and arguably more so abroad. Carter is principled Christian man, yet fully realistic about human nature.
So because humans are weak and can't keep their underwear on, the obvious solution in the liberal universe is to allow the participants to hack the progeny, human children, into small pieces with surgical instruments and call it a "choice." The the liberal anointed can gather round and disapprove of the behavior of the benighted, without vocally condemning them, of course. If the obvious solution was used, which is to make the behavior legally unacceptable with strong penalties for violations, the liberal anointed would no longer have this social largesse, euphemized as "choice" and "reproductive rights," to bestow on the benighted, thereby reducing their superiority and blurring one of the distinctions between the anointed and the benighted. And, of course, Jimmy Carter wouldn't have to spend a lot of public air time justifying his belief that murdering unborn children is in keeping with being a "principled Christian man."
I always find it vastly ironic when pro-aborts hide behind the pro-choice euphemism. As Thomas Sowell points out, this is preemptive language common to all liberal-speak (Sowell calls them "the anointed"). It is a meaningless phrase intended to preempt and avoid debate on the actual topic it is intended to hide. To characterize the murder of an unborn child by dismemberment or chemical incineration as a "choice" is disingenuous at best. There is no practical, societal, cultural, philosophical, or spiritual difference between aborting an unborn child and putting a gun to the temple of a two-year-old and pulling the trigger.
What I took away from it was that while he feels that abortion is inherently wrong, we as a culture aren't doing our best to minimize it but are doing a great job of condemning it.
I'm not sure what alternate universe exists in which a crowd of liberals can simply wish an abhorrent behavior would go away and it happens. Obviously this is not that universe. Furthermore, only in this alternate liberal universe is it wrong, destructive, or useless to condemn an abhorrent behavior. In this mythical land we can dislike, abhor, and avoid any bad behavior, but we must not condemn it. Once again, simply wishing it away would be sufficient to make it stop.
One of his points included a discussion of a successful awareness campaign in Uganda...
Ah, the ubiquitous "awareness campaign." Operating in this alternate liberal universe, one can simply explain to the benighted that they are doing wrong and because the liberal anointed are so obviously superior, the benighted will instantly cease and desist. Of course, in this universe that is not the case. And as with all of the liberal anointed's solutions, success is gauged solely on their criteria or no criteria at all. Since the AIDS pandemic rages on unabated in Uganda, one can only wonder what is meant by "successful."
...dubbed 'ABC,' conceived to combat the spread of AIDS and to encourage family planning; 'ABC' stands for 'abstinence,' 'be faithful,' and 'condom use,' and is emphasized in that order.
Of course abstinence and heterosexual monogamy preclude the need for use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, but that is a reality that doesn't function in the alternate liberal universe. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly and scientifically demonstrated that using a condom to prevent AIDS is roughly as effective as using gauze to keep out rain, but I digress...
Carter expressed that President Bush's 'abstinence only' campaigns are unrealistic thus ineffective in our own culture and arguably more so abroad. Carter is principled Christian man, yet fully realistic about human nature.
So because humans are weak and can't keep their underwear on, the obvious solution in the liberal universe is to allow the participants to hack the progeny, human children, into small pieces with surgical instruments and call it a "choice." The the liberal anointed can gather round and disapprove of the behavior of the benighted, without vocally condemning them, of course. If the obvious solution was used, which is to make the behavior legally unacceptable with strong penalties for violations, the liberal anointed would no longer have this social largesse, euphemized as "choice" and "reproductive rights," to bestow on the benighted, thereby reducing their superiority and blurring one of the distinctions between the anointed and the benighted. And, of course, Jimmy Carter wouldn't have to spend a lot of public air time justifying his belief that murdering unborn children is in keeping with being a "principled Christian man."
posted by Anonymous | 10:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home