Vox Day Hits Another Homer

This is his take on the Kermit Gosnell trial.

No doubt this case will spark protests that Not All Abortion Clinics Are Like That as it gradually leaks into the public consciousness despite the best efforts of the media to keep it contained. But that is akin to claiming that there was nothing wrong with Bergen-Belsen because, after all, things were worse at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Let’s make it perfectly clear. If you are a doctor or a nurse who performs abortions, you are every bit as bad, every bit as purely evil, as the SS-Totenkopfverbänder who slaughtered people in the National Socialists’ extermination camps. And if you are a woman who aborts her child, you are every bit as bad, every bit as disgusting, as the SS guards at those camps, who may not have bloodied their hands themselves, but were complicitcollaborated by making the killing possible.

And if you simply support the so-called “right” to legal abortion, you are no better than a card-carrying member of the National Socialist German Workers Party. In fact, you are even worse. For all their many flaws, the National Socialists at least had a substantive cause: the preservation of a defeated and economically devastated German nation. Your cause is mere female convenience, rendering you even more repellant and abominable in the eyes of anyone who values human life. Their symbol was the reversed Swastika, but yours should be a pyramid of infant skulls.

I understand you have your rationalizations and your justifications. I am aware that you firmly believe that an unborn, or partially born, or newly born, child is either not human or is for some reason or another unworthy of the same right to life possessed by adult human beings who hate racism, support sexual equality, and voted for Barack Obama. I appreciate that you are absolutely convinced that acting to terminate the life of a genetically unique individual who is dependent upon his mother for his continued survival is no different than cutting one’s hair or trimming one’s nails. I know you assert that because it is a woman’s body, she can do whatever she wants with it, all the various trespassing and drug and flasher laws notwithstanding. Or perhaps you have a different reason, in which case feel free to make your case for it here.

But remember this: the Nazis had their justifications too. And those justifications were considerably more soundly rooted in science, history, and logic than yours are.

I assure you, I guarantee you, that future history is going to remember feminists and everyone else who supported the 20th-21st century Holocaust of the Unborn with every bit as much disgust and horror as today’s progressives regard 18th-19th century slavers and 20th century Nazis. The tide is already beginning to turn, as many feminists have finally realized a few of the unforeseen, but retrospectively obvious consequences of their so-called right and begun lobbying for laws against sex-screening and the free exercise of their unholy “right” for officially unapproved reasons.

So, I call on you to rethink your stance, truly rethink it, and repent. Redeem yourself by turning against this evil practice you have supported and speaking out against it. Ask for forgiveness from God and from the millions of innocents whose deaths you rationalized and even encouraged. What is done cannot be undone, but it is never too late to turn away from evil and refuse to continue walking along its dark path.

Stop all the endless rationalizations and justifications. Just stop. They are pointless. You know, in your heart of hearts, they aren’t convincing anyone. They aren’t even convincing you.

During my tour of duty at the crisis pregnancy center–from 1990 to 1993–it was accepted that about 1 in 4 women of childbearing age had had at least one abortion.

Now, that figure is closer to 2 out of 5.

Men: in other words, if you are dating a woman who has EVER had sex, there is probably a greater than 50/50 chance that she has had at least one prior abortion. Do with that information what you will.

This has great implications–none of them good–on a variety of fronts. I shall elaborate later.

Either You Support Abortion,

or you support beheading women for refusing to become prostitutes, according to Suzanne Nossel of Amnesty International.

While the story is reprehensible, Nossel’s take is insidious in its own right:

In a statement, Nossel said women and girls in the region “are raped, killed, forced into marriage in childhood, prevented from obtaining an education and denied their sexual and reproductive rights. Until basic human rights are guaranteed … these horrible abuses will continue to be committed.”

So unless we let women kill babies, women will be subject to honor killings, forced marriage, forced prostitution, and murder for refusing any of the above.

Akin Stepped in It

Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin–addressing the abortion issue–demonstrated complete lunacy.

Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

The fist part of his statement is true: pregnancy resulting from rape is rare. Why? I’m not completely sure, but here’s my take on it.

Pregnancy from sex in general is rare; pregnancy from rape is no more rare than pregnancy from consensual intercourse. It’s just that rape–being less frequent than consensual sex–seems to lead to pregnancy less often than consensual sex.

In order for pregnancy to happen, timing is everything. For it to happen from rape, then the rape has to occur within the same menstrual parameters as any other sex act that could lead to pregnancy.

As for his “legitimate rape” comment, I have no idea what he was smoking. While it is true that women have been known to lie about rape–although said lying is not nearly as common as advertised–this would not be a good time to conflate that issue. This is because, rape or not, pregnancy occurs from sex.

How should Akin have answered that question? He should have said something to the following effect:

When you are dealing with the issue of rape, there is no pretty way to resolve this issue. The woman has had something taken from her that we–as a society–can never replace, even if we skin the rapist alive. I can certainly understand why a woman would not want to carry this child that was conceived in such a violent, senseless act.

At the same time, we need to ask ourselves what compassion requires here. As much as I would otherwise be inclined to support abortion in such cases, that would be a disservice to the child in utero, as he or she does not deserve to die any more than the mother deserved to be raped.

As a society, we must reach out as best as we can to help these women; we must also, as a society, welcome these children who are also faultless. We must work toward a resolution here that honors the humanity of everyone involved.

Had Akin said that, he would have caught some heat from the abortophiles while articulating a strong case for what real compassionate conservatism looks like. It would not have helped him with liberals, but–done with resolve–would have made a compelling case for his leadership in a body that is lacking in that department.

Instead, Akin has effectively handed re-election to Sen. Claire McCaskill (R-MO).

A Tacit Endorsement of Santorum?

SBTS President Al Mohler chimes in on Rick Santorum’s run at the GOP nomination.

My take:

(a) He’s absolutely correct about pre-natal testing. Whether or not one agrees with its legality–as a libertarian, I have no dog in the fight–the fact remains: pre-natal testing leads to more abortions, especially for Down’s Syndrome babies.

(b) He’s absolutely correct about forms of contraception such as The Pill. The Pill does not always prevent contraception, and in fact can and does cause abortion if its contraceptive function has failed.

(c) He’s absolutely correct about “gay marriage”. As a libertarian, I oppose ALL government licensure of marriages–if one wishes to form a union that the government recognizes, one can always start a corporation–in large part due to Santorum’s reasoning.

(Where Santorum gets it wrong: when you give the federal government the authority to decide what marriage is, then you are trusting an inherently secular entity to define–and enforce that definition of–the very institution that you consider sacred. Therefore, if you wish to defend the sanctity of marriage, then enlisting government to defend it is a losing proposition.)

(d) Having worked in government–at the State level and, tangentially, with the federal government due to my work with state programs funded with federal monies–Santorum’s allegation of Satanic involvement in government is credible, if one believes in Satan.

The issue is what, if one believes Santorum, is the proper course of action? Do you have exorcisms? Do you appoint Christian ministers to oversee federal agencies and departments?

My answer: neither. What we must do is limit the size, scope, and power of government. Irrespective of what you think of Santorum’s allegations of governmental satanism, the historical track record of Totalitarian government is not a good one. It would also require serious blinders to look at government–at all levels–and not conclude that we are heading in the direction of, at the very least, Eurofascism.

(e) Santorum has plenty of his own baggage on this front. For someone who apparently believes that Satan is at work in government, he lifted nary a finger to limit said government while he was the junior Senator from Pennsylvania.

Moreover, for someone who apparently believes that Satan is at work in government, he has shown no concern about the military-industrial complex.

(President Eisenhower–who was no kook–warned Americans about this, and his warnings have turned out to be on the money.)

His opposition to right-work legislation also shows his tacit support for labor unions, which support that very large government apparatus and have killed millions of American jobs over the past 40 years.

Right now, none of the candidates are inspiring of great confidence.

Newt Gingrich is overrated and has no clue how the private sector works; his work for the private sector is limited to his consultancy for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His visions for government are, at best, right-leaning fascism. That he is a philanderer who cheated on both his first two wives–the latter affair while he was the #3 man to the Oval Office–reveals a severe lack of judgment for a man who would be President.

Mitt Romney is an excellent businessman who understands the private sector. At the same time, he supports big government; he has no regard for the leanings of court appointments; and he, like Santorum is too cozy with the military-industrial complex.

Ron Paul has the opposite problems: he gets it on domestic policy: from social issues to government spending, he is on the money. But on foreign policy, he is too non-interventionist. While he is correct about Iran, he has not provided an answer about where the threshold for military action ought to be. If the Iranians block the Strait of Hormuz, that is clearly an act of war: Ron Paul would be unwise to ditch that doctrine, which precedes even the Reagan Administration.

At the same time, it would be hard to defend our continued involvement in Aghanistan. We burn a few of their Qurans, they kill a few of our Soldiers, and yet our President apologizes to them?

A real President would suggest that Afghan President Hamid Karzai take the course of action that Vice President Dick Cheney suggested for Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT).

If the Afghans wish to live in the 8th Century, then we are wasting our time trying to make them long for the 21st Century.

If someone is determined to live a certain way–no matter how self-destructive it is–then it not your duty to make that person give a crap.

The same is true for nations.