Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Abortion, Darwinism and the New Eugenics

“Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution.” -1921 at the Second International Congress of Eugenics

I wonder and have often wondered what the real motivation behind the abortion movement is in our country. Are these people so opposed to the birth of live children? Are people so hindered by the sick and lame and poor that they truly believe that it would be better to kill them under the banner of “freedom of choice”? Darwin and evolution proponents propose the progression of life, even human life, as being a process of natural selection. Abortion through the means of prenatal diagnosis now presupposes unnatural selection that is neither random nor evolutionary. The intended targets of abortion, unwanted unborn human beings, are chosen because they are deemed sick, are genetically different, possess undesirable traits or are simply the wrong sex. The abortion proponent says that they are “pro-choice” and to the extent that they want to choose who lives and who dies, it is an apt description. The power to choose must never proclude human rights however. The “pro-choice” viewpoint essentially advocates a socially acceptable form of eugenics. Abortion would weed out whichever human persons others deem undesirable. For the moment, they leave that choice to the individual woman who might or might not consult with the father of that child. For now that is. How long before the abortion industy, or some government agency, provides an institutionalized and formal list of the exact traits which prospective parents might or should choose to avoid giving live birth to, and the means to detect, diagnosis and kill such unwanted individuals who bear these traits? It may seem a far flung theory now, but given the potential for governmental health care guidelines and abortion money, who can know?

Having given it some thought, the abortion argument against religion that would forbid or morally explain the wrongness of abortion is very similar to the arguments which are occurring between creationists/intelligent design and Darwinists/evolutionists. The atheistic Darwin establishment would have you believe that there is no God and they are opposed to the very idea, or even vague suggestion of any intelligent design. Now I know that some of faith would argue that the use of even intelligent design rather than creation is not true to religious faith, but this does however show the obvious effect that any suggestion of non-randomness to the order of the existing universe and origin of life has on Darwinists. They are offended by anything that suggests God or intended purpose. Ultimately we are bound in a struggle between two schools of thought about who we are as human beings and what the nature of our identities is in relation to the origin of our very existance. With no moral absolutes, the abortionist would in turn argue that there is no moral standard against which to measure abortion. In truth, the abortionist no longer even need hide behind all the worn out language softening of the post Margaret Sanger era, and need only tell us that they are for killing babies, and only if certain types of babies. No one should be be shocked except the extremely naive or idealistic who refuse to believe that anyone could believe such a thing. The abortionist needs for there to be no God, because at this stage of the game they believe that God is the sole remaining reason that anyone could deduce that abortion is wrong on any level. God has simply become for them an impediment to unrestricted abortion access.

But is abortion actually about choosing “who” will live and who will die? There would be no debate if one side or the other, and truly both side truly did not believe that abortion kills a human person. In turn, the abortionist would not be nearly so evasive as to the question of the intentions and results of abortion if they in fact did not know that abortion does kill a human person. The arguments have become so exhausted as to leave nowhere left to go forth except to state the obvious; that abortion is about the self direction of human evolution by choosing to kill some unborn persons and allowing others to be born. The Darwinian evolutionist would tell you that any breeder of animals knows that to achieve a certain desired reproductive outcome, one should breed only healthy desirable stock. That is how Charles Darwin viewed the human condition in relation to reproduction. Darwin however would have done better to breed chickens that would lay more eggs, than to ever tell humankind anything about the original genesis of the human person. Human procreation is not simply the biological process of animal reproduction but is rather based upon human relationships and upon those so mysterious and illusive of human qualities; attraction, love and sexuality. The abortionist would have you believe that the abortive precedure is simply one inanimate function to control another inanimate function; chosen as a means to an end to control the random results of selective sexual encounters. Those words sound as cold and un-romantic as they are intended to. Post-conceptive-sterility is in fact the aim and end result of abortion. Abortion, as it has been said, does not make you un-pregnant. Abortion results in a dead baby and a mother without a child, unable or unwilling to grieve. Abortion does not turn back the clock of human choices and make it so that the conceived human person never existed. Abortion kills an already conceived human person.

The culture war that has begun and which is now expanding is not going to be an easy one to resolve. The enemies of the unborn are entrenched; in the various media, in the state and federal houses of power, in the presidential office in Washington and perhaps most dangerously in university classrooms across America, stifling religious discussion and all semblance of religiously, morally and intellectually inspired points of view. Whether the election of Barack Obama was an active step in this larger anti-religious abortive movement in America or that perhaps the nomination and subsequent election of Obama will prove to be simply a case of oportunistic fortune has yet to be seen. Barack Obama may not be the great abortion champion and provider that some long for, but he will surely do nothing to stop them and the judges that he would and is now nominating to the Supreme Court of the United States will most likely be pliable enough to fascilitate the abortion movements abortion spreading agenda. Abortion does certainly tie in with the Marxist worldview that Barack Obama would seem to hold, that which embraces class envy and generates animosity between the rich and the poor. Abortion does not make people equal. The killing of the unborn human person in the womb cannot possibly be viewed or construed as compassion or as being an enlightened human event in history. Abortion does not advance the human condition or advance our understanding of the world and universe. Abortion does not make the world safer, better, stronger or wealthier. Abortion not only denies the ultimate origin of our human existance but diminishes the many needs and desires of human society. Abortion kills a human person and the unchanging fact of the death of each unborn person that occurs in every abortion is the only human variable that does not change with the times.

1 comment:

  1. Thank you for posting this ... exceptionally thoughtful and shot-on. I agree.