When the “learning opportunity” of the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle was taking place, I wrote:
[the past day's high drama had given] me a mental image of Moloch, enraged and stomping and roaring because there was a threat of less meat coming to his fire.
Today, Moloch is appeased; the media’s heartbeat and respiration are returning to normal. They and their pals in DC can take a nice, deep cleansing breath and sit back and smile, understanding what they have just demonstrated to themselves, their enemies and the world: you don’t have to fall in love; just fall in line, or you will fall, altogether.
Recall the Komen story was breaking just as people were beginning to react to the Obama administration’s announcement on the HHS Mandate (before his later “accommodation”) and the media non-coverage of the annual March for Life on Washington DC. Quickly on the heels of those stories, the Democrats and the press began to pretend that Republicans, Christians and Catholics were conspiring to ban contraception, which (according to this 2009 CDC report (pdf)) 99% of American women can easily and affordably access.
Since then, it has seemed to me that the servants of Moloch have been very, very busy assuring their god that his feedings will continue unabated. In congress and elsewhere, we have performance art suggesting that life is a tragic and burdensome thing that must be relentlessly beaten back via sterilization, abortifacients and difficult-to-obtain contraception.
As our president likes to say, “let’s be clear”: Life is formed on the breath of intention — a breath that always utters “yes” because nothing is created from “no.” When a new life comes into the world, with it is delivered a renewal of old love, and the creation of wholly new love, shared, developed and grown between parent and child, child and grandparents, and so on. It is, at its most fundamental, the continual re-emergence and action of God — who is love — into the world.
To hate life, especially new life, is to hate God. To distrust it or dissuade it is to distrust and try to dissuade God. To destroy it is an attempt to destroy God. To obsess on preventing the possibility of life to-a-manic-extreme is to try desperately to hold God at bay, to contain him, to make God obedient to oneself, or to order him away. To slaughter his loved-into-being new life is to nourish emptiness and death on its blood; it is to worship an illusory freedom one thinks comes from saying “no.”
One can be confused or ignorant and not realize that when one rejects life one rejects love, and thus rejects God. Invincible ignorance counts. But true evil understands what it does, and how it moves and who it uses. And not everyone it uses minds being used.
Interestingly, 2012 appears to be shaping as the year in which life-hating, love-hating, God-hating evil has come very much to the fore, seeking out a head-on collision with the God who is love. Perhaps it believes it is winning something. Perhaps it is feeling encouraged by recent demonstrations that government bodies harbor a profound misunderstanding of the concept of human moral conscience, which as become a narrowly-defined, expendable thing:
. . .two senior midwives from Glasgow who have a conscientious objection to abortion. The midwives have been told that they must accept the decision of their hospital management that they must oversee other midwives performing abortions on the labour ward.
The messages being spelled out both in Britain and in the United States is, “you God-botherers will either put aside your consciences, or you will be put aside, all-together; your choices are capitulation or complete social and economic marginalization.”
Or, of course, it goes without saying: battle.
Message received. Battle it is.
A few weeks ago, during a debate New Gingrich brought up a 2002 piece of Illinois State legislation meant to provide medical service to babies born alive during a botched abortion. Senator Obama, a faithful defender of abortion in any and all circumstances, argued against it (pages 32-33 [pdf]) thusly:
. . .[the] fetus or child – however you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think it’s non-viable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved . . . my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.
Yes, if the killing has failed, “if they’re not just coming out limp and dead”, then the job must be finished; Moloch must be served, because there is nothing we might learn, nothing love might heal, if it is not.
Since that issue was resurrected, we’re suddenly hearing from death-apologists who suggest not only that a baby born of a botched abortion is killable, but that any infant can ethically be slain. Why, after all, should the baby live?:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Or, perhaps, even better yet, this one:
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey, What if the Bishops aren’t bluffing?
In California: a move to allow nurse practitioners, midwives and others to perform abortions Moloch must be served.
Dr. Gerard Nadal wonders if Darwin was the architect of the Culture of Death, but no, I don’t think so. Its author and architect preceded him by many, many years.
He is as old as Eden. And a slitherer, still.
[As an aside, I have come to believe that Humanae Vitae is going to eventually be seen as a powerfully unifying document between Evangelicals and Catholics, but that's for another post - es]
and some snark
Lenten Reflection for the post-abortive
Our Daughters Dreams Arise from this Glad Slaughter