THE ULTIMATE OXYMORON: BABY KILLERS ARE PRO-LIFE

The February 2006 issue of New Oxford Review has an excellent article by Ron Galloy entitled “COMING TO TERMS--A Pro-life Semantics Guide.” It details how the liberal media and their friends in the abortion business use euphemisms to hide the reality of what they support and what they do.The article is well worth reading and for at least a while can be found at NOR’s website (www.newoxfordreview.org).

The only disagreement I have with Mr. Galloy is over his displeasure with the term “anti-abortion:”

* * Quote * *
"Anti-abortion" is a media tag applied to people who are pro-life. It is not good for pro-lifers to define themselves thus, not because it isn't true but because of its negative and awkward terminology. Pro-life and right to life are positive expressions that better promote the cause of life.

* * End Quote * *
My feelings are the opposite of Mr. Galloy’s. While I have nothing against the term “pro-life,” I decided years ago that, as far as I was concerned, it wasn’t strong enough. Here, for what they are worth, are my reasons:

1. Some of us are anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty, and we are not pacifists. Calling ourselves “pro-life” allows our opponents to taunt us with what they pretend is a hypocritical inconsistency. (They had this smug retort handed to them, let’s remember, by the late and unlamented Cardinal Bernardin with his “Seamless Garment” theory.) We cannot, they say, be against abortion while supporting the execution of killers, or the waging of wars. But we can, because we see the difference between an unborn child and a serial killer. And we can, because there are distinctions between just wars and wars of aggression, and we believe some things are worse than death. So does the abortion crowd; they just pretend that there are no such distinctions.

2. “Pro-life” does not capture the evil, the unspeakable ugliness, of what we oppose. “Pro-life” became tepid and meek for me the day I read descriptions of saline abortions and of partial-birth abortions. Anyone interested can find these descriptions on the Internet. By styling ourselves “pro-life,” we throw away the opportunity to remind others of what abortion really, truly is.

3. Calling ourselves “Pro-life” allows the baby killers to choose the terms of the debate, which Mr. Galloy’s article rightly deplores. Abortionists and their supporters, remember, wrap themselves in a mantle of sanctimony, claiming that they are not “pro-abortion,” merely “pro-choice.” They claim, with a straight face, that they, too, are “pro-life,” in the sense of wanting every woman to have a meaningful, rewarding life, a life that will be lost if she has to carry a “fetus” to term.

The phenomenon of baby killers rationalizing their sacred “right” as being “pro-life” is found in an essay by Leonard Peikoff, the man designated by Ayn Rand (the Queen of Greed) to be her intellectual heir. Peikoff claims his defense of abortion is based on “fundamental, moral” considerations. His essay, “Abortion is Pro-life,” can be found on a website of that name: http://www.abortionisprolife.com/. He summarizes his position as follows:

* * Quote * *
It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.

* * End Quote * *
…that is, gives her the right to kill her unborn child. Right from the start, euphemisms are used to make palatable a most unsavory act. They are used because they are needed.
Peikoff continues:

* * Quote * *
Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."

* * End Quote * *
His rhetoric isn’t even intelligent rhetoric. Who sentences the woman? God? Nature? Society? To whom does the woman sacrifice her life? I assume Peikoff means that an unwillingly pregnant woman will have to give up her career, say, on the pro-tennis circuit, if she gives birth to the child. But that is hardly her “life.” And in the terms of Peikoff’s argument (which we will discuss shortly), the embryo ceases to be such after the first trimester, so if there is a “sacrifice,” it is a sacrifice to a child, not to an embryo. But Peikoff doesn’t want to remind his readers, now does he, that what he is talking about is children! He continues:

* * QUOTE * *
The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.
Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life--lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.

* * End Quote * *
Peikoff’s fundamental moral terms amount to one basic definition, and it is absolutely necessary to his argument. It is not original with him, though. Every other abortion supporter has said the same thing ceaselessly:

* * Quote * *
The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant.
But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

* * End Quote * *
The thing to notice about this argument is that it depends completely on defining an embryo as a “potential human being,” with the disparaging corollary that at present it is only “a clump of cells.” Other terms used by Peikoff rely, ex- or im-plicitly, on this first definition. Peikoff assumes the truth of his definitions and is confident that everyone else does, or will, too. Since “He who defines the terms wins the argument,” Peikoff thinks he is home free
Peikoff always writes of the “embryo,” and this appears to mean the “mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body” during the first trimester. (By the way: what does he mean by “relatively?” Is this an admission that the cells are “differentiated,” just not “differentiated” enough to have any independent value? Who knows? Probably not even Peikoff.) But nowhere does he restrict the availability of abortion to the first trimester. And in the following pronouncement, it appears that the stage of “embryo” lasts until “infancy,” that is, until birth:

* * Quote * *
An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant.

* End Quote * *

Then this:

* * Quote * *
(1) If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, (2) call any adultan "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students. (Enumeration added.)

* * End Quote * *
That’s cute; but what, if anything, does it mean? I think what he is saying (and he probably thinks it’s a devastating argument to use against anti-abortionists) is this: “If we accept the premise that an embryo is a pre-human clump of tissue, then it is illogical to call it an unborn child; it is as illogical as it would be to call an adult a corpse and treat as if dead.” And any reader with an ounce of intelligence is bound to ask, Yeah? So? If Peikoff thinks this analogy proves that the embryo is pre-human, he’s wrong. The conclusion that he wants you to draw is already in his premise, so his little analogy is nothing but a disguised tautology.

But the vapidity of the quoted sentence is fully revealed when we consider its imbalance. Part (2) consists of a mental operation (equating potential with actual), as a result of which we commit both a verbal act (calling an adult an “undead corpse”), and an act of murder. Part (1) has the mental operation, as a result of which we commit only the verbal act. In order to balance (1) and (2), we would have to make explicit what follows from calling the embryo an unborn child: i.e., treating the unborn child as a member of the human race; which includes prohibiting others from murdering him. Peikoff carefully avoids stating this consequence, for the same reason that he carefully avoids mentioning that a pregnant woman’s “life” is “sacrificed” to a child.

He writes as if he thinks we—i.e., our law, our culture---would never, ever call an adult an “undead corpse” and do those horrible things to him.

Peikoff should look around and read something other than Atlas Shrugged. We call an embryo an “unborn child” because we recognize his humanity, his membership in the human race. We don’t call an adult an “undead corpse,” for the same reason: his humanity, his membership in the human race. The real analogy which Peikoff either doesn’t see or hopes we won’t see is this:

(1) If we deny the equation of the potential with the actual and refuseto recognize the embryo as an "unborn child," and thus allow him to be murdered with impunity, we could, with equal logic, (2) call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

To deny humanity to the embryo and allow it to be killed is the same as denying the humanity of an adult and allowing him to be killed. Abortion and euthanasia---homicide at the beginning of life and homicide at the end of life---have been made legal by decree and logical by definitions. All you have to do is define murder, abortion and euthanasia in such a way that the last two are not comprised in the first. The list of Western nations permitting both practices grows almost daily. We may not subject our older or seriously ill citizens to being vivisected or buried alive, but we do treat them as worthless and expensive, and devise justifications and seek legal sanction for killing them.

According to Peikoff, who is very foggy on the point, an embryo is only a potential human being. At some point, this potentiality ceases. The embryo’s humanity is actualized and it becomes human (and thus becomes entitled to rights, to protection, and to nurture). But he doesn’t say when this happens. Is it at the end of the first trimester, at birth, or at some point in between? If this moment of actualization occurs at the end of the first trimester, then Peikoff should oppose abortions thereafter, should he not? Nowhere in his essay does he say this. If, on the other hand, the potentiality doesn’t end until birth, then abortions at any time are okay, are they not? Yet nowhere does Peikoff admit this, either. His use of logic is very selective.

Like his analogy of “undead corpses,” the neat delineation of the “potential” and the “actual,” although convenient for Peikoff, doesn’t work. Things don’t work the way Peikoff’s conceptual imaginings want them to.

In the first place, “potentiality” and “actuality” are not separate, mutually exclusive states of existence. We are not talking about closing a real estate transaction, where one is a potential homeowner until the escrow closes, after which one is an actual homeowner.

No living thing (especially a human) is” actualized” in the way Peikoff thinks. The day-old infant is not a completed human being. She has much growth ahead of her, physically and spiritually (or if you prefer, psychically). She will be changing throughout her life. Some of this change is considered growth, and some of it is considered deterioration, but it is all change. Her entire life is one in which she actualizes her potential, including the potential of growing old and dying. The infant is a potential, and eventually, an actual toddler, who is a potential, and eventually, an actual child, who is a potential, and then an actual, adolescent…. Peikoff writes that potentiality ends and actuality begins at a particular point, but wherever this point is, it is merely his chosen point. Others---Professor Singer, for instance---prefer to choose their own points, and refuse to be bound by someone else’s point. The good professor advocates a thirty-day “Parents’ Remorse” period in which their baby can be killed if they are for any reason unhappy. Why the good professor did not give the parents sixty days, I don’t have the foggiest.

Potentiality does not exist by itself. Something that already is has potentiality to be and to grow, but the point is that it has being, has actuality, now. The acorn is only a potential tree, but the acorn exists now, it is an actual acorn now. Corn seed has only the potential of becoming a stalk of corn, but as seed it exists here and now. A child is only a potential adult, but it’s being as a child is actual. And the same is true of the embryo—it is a potential newborn, but it exists as an embryo now.

And this brings us to another weakness in Peikoff’s argument. He ignores the question, To what end is the potentiality of the embryo directed? He denigrates the embryo as a “clump of cells” (oh, right, let’s not forget, “relatively undifferentiated cells”) and says it is more primitive than a fish or a frog. Grant his terms if you want, but ask him, So What? He is aware, one hopes, that the human embryo will never be a fish or a frog. Even if we were to grant Peikoff his starting point and agree that this “clump” is not human yet, its potency is only to be human. It will not lose its nature and assume some other. It will not develop into a shark or a toad. It may not fulfill its destiny. “Nature” may interrupt its growth and development, or perhaps its mother will decide to have it killed. But it is a “clump” (still granting Peikoff the terms of the discussion) that will be human or it will be nothing.

The nature of the embryo Peikoff disparages as a “clump,” the fact that its destiny, its potency, is to become one thing and one thing only, is part of what makes the “clump of relatively undifferentiated cells” human. The embryo, at three hours or at three months, is already human; if for no other reason, then because it can never be anything else. It will be more fully human, unless nature or an abortionist interferes.

Peikoff’s distinction between potentiality and actuality is a mere rationalization for murder. His essay is so weak, so dependent on his basic definition, that it may have been written tongue-in-cheek to mock the use by anti-abortionists of the words “pro-life.” But for its subject matter, it would be laughable.

Copyright 2006 James F. Csank
aka Siger of Brabant
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com

ABORTION AND THE GAY AGENDA: SECULARISM’S BIG GUNS

For approximately one thousand years after the fall of Rome, European civilization comprised a religion (Roman Catholicism), a morality (based on the revealed word of God and the natural law implanted in man by his Creator), and a political hegemony (in which the Church was both a secular ruler and a moral and spiritual influence on other rulers.) This “Catholic Civilization” was not seriously threatened by numerous dissenters who, from time to time,sought to weaken the Church and obtain a greater freedom either for themselves or for one of the new Nation-States.

The Protestant Revolution (to give it its accurate name) seriously weakened the authority and the influence of the Church. In the political sphere, it strengthened existing political powers and gave rise to new ones, many of which broke their ties with the Church in order to preserve their independence. The rulers of these kingdoms often solidified their political power by appropriating Church property and doling it out to their supporters. They also appropriated religious authority (Cuius regio, eius religio). In the moral sphere, even though the Protestant powers retained and continued to enforce the Judeo-Christian ethical system, the weakening of the Church and the Catholic Faith, and the strengthening of the secular state, laid the groundwork for the secularization of morality.

This new “Christian Civilization” migrated with Europeans when they sailed to the distant shores of North, Central, and South America, and, later, to Australia and New Zealand.

The decline of its political authority reduced the role of the Church to that of moral arbiter, and even that only in parts of Europe. The rise of the Nation-States, controlled by self-confident men with a secular perspective working for secular purposes, saw the re-birth (the renascence) of the belief that “MAN” was the center of the Universe; that, as Protagoras said two thousand years earlier, Man was the measure of all things, and that he was therefore answerable only to himself. Reveling in their greater freedom, some began to challenge the moral/ethical basis of Christian Civilization.

Thus began (c. 1750) the so-called Enlightenment. (“So-called” because as someone once pointed out, history is written by the winners.) Men no longer felt a need for spiritual guidance or for spiritual sustenance. Philosophers, writers, kings and their advisers, and educators discarded considerations of religion, eternity, and God, and substituted considerations of power, wealth, and trade. “Science” provided materialistic and naturalistic explanations for many phenomena; and it promised that it would soon provide similar explanations for everything. (This was a matter of faith, not of science. It still is.) Rousseau was only one of many whose writings gave rise to a belief that man was perfectible and that his institutions were corrupt. The seeds of a “Secular Civilization.” were planted.

As Secular Civilization waxed, Christian Civilization waned. The traditional morality of society was replaced with one based on humanism, either atheistic or agnostic. Right and Wrong no longer arose out of the nature of man; they were no longer set for all eternity by the revealed Word of God. Whether something was Right or Wrong now depended on whether it contributed to the accumulation of wealth and power, on the one hand, and to the “freedom” of man on the other. Men became “free” by ridding themselves of the constraints imposed by an unseen God, constraints written down in a book thousands of years old, and enforced by Church officials.
But constraints were still necessary. The rulers of society supplied them. For the word of God Man substituted his own word; and the givers of this word became the new gods.

Some precepts were carry-overs from Judeo-Christian morality: thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal. But other precepts were discarded or revised. Exceptions were made. The standard was, What is expedient for the ruling class? This was often disguised as, What is good for the nation?

(((Interjection No. 1: The change can be summarized by an example from modern America. It used to be against the law to murder unborn children, but permissible to smoke. Now, smoking is a crime in many places, and is always a social sin, while murdering unborn children is a constitutional right, protected by the government.)))

For some time, this new lawgiver was a king. After the “Glorious” and the American Revolutions, the lawgiver was a legislature composed of the commercial and landed elite of the nation. Democratic theorists convinced many that everyone had a right to partake, if not in the actual framing of laws, at least in choosing those who did frame them. (The French Revolution failed to attain its democratic ends, but the widening of the franchise by peaceful means was successful in England and the United States.) In some countries, in some circumstances, the courts became the ultimate lawgiver.

(((Interjection No. 2: What is right, what is wrong, sometimes changes overnight. On January 21, 1973, abortion was considered by many a form of murder. The laws of many states prohibited it outright; those that allowed it in some circumstances restricted it. Abortion was a crime, and the abortionist was prosecuted. On January 22, 1973, abortion became a constitutional right. Abortuaries advertised in the newspapers and competed with each other. They applied for and were granted public funds, some of which they put in their pockets, some of which they spent to kill babies more efficiently. Why did this occur? Why did everyone, even those who opposed the abortion decision, meekly accept it as if the Court’s members lived on Mount Sinai? It was accepted because Americans had been conditioned to believe the Supreme Court’s word WAS law, and that the LAW was sacred.)))

The commandments of the new morality in democratic countries emanate from the framers of public opinion: from the educators, the politicians, and the judges, aided, abetted, and supported by those who controlled the media. These commandments are always subject to change, because circumstances are always changing. “Public opinion” became synonymous with what the public would accept, and the public would accept what it had been conditioned to accept.

For a quarter of a millennium, Secularism has been engaged in a struggle with Christianity for power, a struggle for the loyalty, for the very soul, of the human race.

In Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings,” the battles between the forces of Good and of Evil intensify throughout the story, until the climactic Final Battle outside the gates of Mordor. In like manner, the battles between the Christian and the Secular Civilizations have intensified over the years. These battles have involved a myriad of issues (divorce, the teaching of evolution, Sunday “Blue Laws”). There is no doubt that the Secularists have had the better of the struggle for some time. The phrase “Slippery Slope” is used by the Christian side to summarize the process by which the acceptance of one belief leads to the acceptance of others. And because people will act as they believe, policies are adopted to embody, to legalize, and to legitimize the new beliefs. What Christians view as defeats, as movement down the “slippery slope,” Secularists view as steps up the ladder of Progress (always capitalized).

(((Interjection No. 3: Example: the right to privacy was first used to strike down laws prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices by married people. Then it was used to strike down laws prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices by anyone, married or unmarried. Then it was used to justify the deliberate murder of unborn children. The result: about forty million babies killed between January 1973 and late 2005.)))

(((Interjection No. 4: Secularism began by challenging the influence of religion in governmental affairs. The First Amendment prohibits governmental interference with the practice of religion, and prohibits the establishment of a state-supported church. Within a decade, there was a “wall of separation between Church and State.” Secularism next challenged Church control of education; it won that battle, and now we have education controlled by the State. Secularism now objects to any display of religion in public places: no moments of silence at football games; no crèches on lawns owned by any agency of government; no posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings; no Christmas songs of a religious nature. Retailers are pressured into removing “Merry Christmas” and substituting “Happy Holidays.”)))

After World War II, the Secularists felt secure enough in their positions of power and influence to attack the basis of Christian Civilization, in a kind of All or Nothing confrontation. That Final Battle is being fought now. Most engagements are on the spiritual and philosophical level--- the level of ideas, propaganda, and law. (The Law creates its own reality; it is a perfect example of Idealism in action. Recall how abortion went from a crime to a right.) But there have been some physical skirmishes and physical casualties, too. (An abortionist is killed when his clinic is bombed. A mother of four who dares to tell a gay man that his actions are sinful and that she will pray for him is murdered and buried in the floor of his apartment.) Perhaps the secularists judged that Christian Civilization was ready to collapse and needed only the coup de grace; or perhaps they just became impatient to establish a society founded only on the word and wishes of Man; whatever the reasons, they decided to attack the family.

These days, when the word “family” has been perverted, we need to define the term. By “family,” I mean a father and a mother, living together, committed to each other and their children; in many cases the family circle includes an older blood relative. “Family” includes a man and woman united in marriage who have no children. “Family” does not include two homosexual men or two lesbians living together; nor does it include a man and woman living together, with or without children.

The secularists know the importance of the family to Christian Civilization. . They know that if they can destroy the family, the last barrier to their domination will disappear. Like sharks in the water, they can smell the blood flowing from the wounds already inflicted.

((( Interjection No. 5: A court has recently ruled that parents have no say in what their children are taught in public schools. Marriages are easily dissolved, even when there are children. Thirteen- or fourteen-year-old girls can obtain abortions without parental consent or even knowledge. Condoms are handed out in high school.Fifth-graders are taught how to put them on bananas.)))

Why do the Secularists seek the destruction of the family? Because it is the basis of civilization. It is a natural unit: a man and a woman, bringing forth children, caring for the next generation, ensuring the continuation of the species and the preservation and progress of culture.

The family regulates the sexual drive and the relations between the sexes. It provides a bulwark against license and self-indulgence and their effects.

This is why conservatives and traditionalists love and support the family as an institution; and this is why the secularists hate and seek to destroy the family.

If secularists succeed, they can build a new civilization on a different basis. (And what other basis could there be but the State? But that is whole separate story.)

How do you destroy the family? You attack its basic function (its control of the sexual drive), and you do this by attacking its members at their weakest point. And what is the weakest point of most people, most of the time? It is the libido.

Here’s what you do. You convince people that Christian Civilization has kept them enslaved to rules and regulations for centuries. You convince them that religion and morality are shackles; that they will be happier, freer, and that they will “Find Themselves,” if they liberate their libidos and indulge themselves. You convince them at the same time that the family is the Great Inhibitor, the Great Tyrant standing between them and their “personal fulfillment.” You attack the family by demanding that the sexual drive be liberated, that it be freed from restrictions. You develop or apply technologies that result in human life, as Huxley predicted would happen. You even attack the very meaning of the word “family” by applying it to the perverted relationships of sodomites and lesbians.

Your weapons include pornography and artificial birth control. You make it as easy as possible to break the bonds of marriage. You adopt welfare policies that encourage men to walk away from the responsibility of raising their children; you extol single parent “families,” (the single parent being almost always the mother). You teach the children as early as possible that sex is a form of recreation, and that they have right to indulge themselves, regardless of what their parents say. You publish books, exhibit movies, and broadcast television shows full of promiscuity and infidelity; you never, ever, show any negative effects of these behaviors. You start with popularizers like Kinsey, a pervert, and call him a scientist; and like Hefner, a pornographer, and make him a cultural hero. You are confident that the “Great Thinkers,” the “Best Minds,” of our times are ready to support you with deep philosophical rationalizations—the Professor Singers, who extol infanticide as well as abortion; and Supreme Court Justices, who make the murder of children and the commission of sodomy legal rights.

You strike your blows in the name of “Freedom.” But what you offer is “License.” You promise that everybody will be free to indulge in any and every sexual desire, free to fulfill any and every sexual fantasy. You convince them that there will be no untoward consequences, and that nobody will be judged. Who, after all, is fit to judge anyone else?

The Slope is indeed Slippery. When you have started downhill by preventing the conception of a child, what comes next? The disposal of children already conceived, legally and with mass-market economies. What comes naturally after sexual license between the sexes, where anything goes as long as “nobody gets hurt”? Sexual license with members of the same sex. Gays and Lesbians are now given their “rights;” they and their perversions are not only protected by hate-crime legislation, but esteemed and honored. As we slide further downhill, we meet affiliated perverts: Bisexuals, Transsexuals, and Transgenders.

In short, you adopt and extol Abortion and Homosexuality.

ABORTION
In this country alone, about forty million babies have been murdered since January 1973, and the toll goes on. Abortion supporters claim that half of all abortions are performed on thirteen-year-old girls impregnated by drunken stepfathers; the other half, they claim, are performed to save the lives of the mothers. But we all know these two categories entail a minuscule proportion of abortions. The great majority are provided to women who simply don’t want any more kids; or to women who don’t want kids at all because motherhood would interfere with their careers on the pro tennis circuit, in the office, or in Hollywood

It is almost beyond comprehension: we not only allow, we positively celebrate, we protect as a basic human right, the freedom to murder innocent human beings. The bra-burning feminists are fond of repeating one of the more ignorant mantras of the abortion industry and its supporters: “If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Whom are they trying to kid? Abortion IS a sacrament. Look around. A supreme Court nominee who even hints that he or she might possibly, perhaps, in some circumstances, theoretically question the right of abortion has no chance of being confirmed—none whatsoever. The attempt to impose even the slightest restriction on the unlimited right to murder babies is met with hysteria; such restrictions are presented as the first step in a return to a theocracy in which the Church will control women’s wombs; any restrictions would constitute a tyranny that would make Nazi Germany seemed gentle. A pro-life Democratic governor of a large, populous state is denied the right to speak at a recent Democratic National Convention. A President with the morals of a rutting pig is forgiven the most egregious conduct because he is “right” on abortion, even to the extent of honoring in the White House women who have paid abortionists to perform “partial birth abortions” on their offspring.

HOMOSEXUALITY
Homosexuality is fixated on the physical. It is temporary, spontaneous, sterile, and unloving; the male variety is often violent. Think about what gay men do to each other. This act becomes a symbol of freedom; gays enthuse over it, even though it leads to incurable diseases. It is an act of perversion, not of love, and it epitomizes what the gay agenda is all about. Homosexuals delight in their perversions. It is their way of venting their hatred of Christian Civilization and of the family. Heterosexuals don’t give a damn what homosexuals do to each other. Heterosexuals give very much of a damn what homosexuals are doing to society, to morals, and to civilization.

Abortion and the gay agenda are the loci of the most bitter, most portentous battles in the war that is being waged between Civilizations. That supporters of those issues have won so many battles is emblematic of the collapse of moral values in America.
What abortion and the Gay agenda have in common is their hatred of the family. That is why a supporter of one is almost always a supporter of the other.

What greater attacks on the family can be imagined than abortion and homosexuality? Besides allowing the consequences of illicit sex to be erased, abortion kills the offspring of marriage; it prevents a family from coming into existence, or prevents the growth of an existing family. What better way to destroy the family than to destroy the product of the family?

Homosexuality attacks the idea of a life-long commitment of one man and one woman to each other, open to the transmission of life. The demand that “unions” of gays be accorded the status of “marriage” epitomizes the contempt that secularists, homosexuals, and atheists have for Christian Civilization. It is a parody, a conscious, deliberate mockery, of marriage. The Gay agenda is a direct attack on the family, on the young, on the future.

These are two “freedoms” long desired. Abortion, sodomy, and lesbianism: these the world has always had. But they were hidden, always done in secret, in the dark. Why? Because they are, on top of everything else, perversions of nature. Nature intended men and women to meet, to reproduce, and to raise the children in a family. Nature did not intend humans to kill their young. Nature did not intend men to sodomize each other, nor women to use toys on each other.

These issues are recognized by almost everyone to be the lynch pins of the battle between the Judeo-Christian morality and culture of Christian Civilization and the atheistic/secularist morality and culture of Secular Civilization.

(This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com in February 2006.)

Copyright 2006 by James F. Csank
aka Siger of Brabant
All Rights Reserved.