Est. May 2008

28 April, 2013

What Value, Human Life?

(from clashdaily.com)
Years ago, I read that if you were to reduce a human body to its atoms, molecules, and minerals, it would be worth about $18US.  With the increasing prices of everything, you’d expect that amount to have gone up (after all, it was a few years ago that I’d read that).

But frankly, historically-speaking, the value of a human life hasn’t really gone up in the eyes of many people – in fact, it’s gone down.


There really hasn’t been a nation on earth which has strictly adhered to the notion of ‘inherent human worth’ or the value of human life; history books are filled with stories of wholesale slaughter and enslavement of people groups, slaughter and enslavement which could only happen if one people group viewed another as less than human in some way.

Some folks will point an accusing finger at Charles Darwin and his idea that human beings – in fact, all animal life – evolved from some lower form of creature, and because of this human beings are simply more highly evolved animals. 

But you can’t point the finger of blame at Darwinism – or its offshoot, social Darwinism, which has been blamed for the ethnic cleansings (which we now call genocide) of the 19th and 20th Centuries – for the slaughter and enslavements of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Celts, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Meso-American Indians (to name a few) because Darwin hadn’t been born yet.

So what can we blame for it?

We could blame greed for land and resources; we could blame pride of one group over another; we could blame the lust for power; we could blame a lot of things.  But it all boils down to one thing: the indoctrination of the idea that some humans are human and others aren’t. 

Except for your rare sociopath, who’s mental wiring is fried for some reason, the psychological ability to view another human being as something less than a fellow human being comes from training from an outside source.  For instance, do you think that all the soldiers of the Third Reich were sociopaths?  Hardly, yet enough of them had been trained that Jews were subhuman (along with Poles, Gypsies, and other ‘Untermenschen’) that the depredations of  Kristallnacht, public executions alongside trenches dug by the victims, the death-camps, etc., etc., hardly fazed them.

There are plenty of stories in the history books of the same type of dehumanization among the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and others; Greece and Rome couldn’t have had as many slaves as they did had they not been trained to view the ‘other’ as less than human; the Mongols wouldn’t have been so bold as to rip pregnant women open had they not looked upon their victims as less than themselves; the Canaanites and others wouldn’t have been as likely to toss their infants and toddlers into the fires of Molech had they viewed those children as human.

What did all those pre-Darwin cultures have in common?  One of the major things was that they were all polytheistic, with their assorted gods and goddesses of things like fertility, weather, farming, and war, to name a few of the jobs they were in charge of.  Now, one of the things necessary was to appease those gods and goddesses to keep them happy and cooperative; you also had to appease their anger when you upset them.  But you had to know what kept them happy, and what you needed to do in order to mollify their anger should you cross them

This meant sacrifice.  And depending on the god or goddess, that sacrifice could be crops, livestock, sexual intercourse, or, in some cases, the ritual slaughter of another human being.

(from wikipedia)
As for this last type of mollifying sacrifice, there’s no other god which turns the modern stomach more than the one who requires the sacrifice of a child.  One of the most famous (or infamous) of these gods was Molech (or Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, Moloc, Melech, Milcom or Molcom).  He was usually depicted as you see in the picture to the left: a bull-god which was actually a furnace into which the worshiper tossed or rolled their child. 

And yes, the child was alive when that happened.

Which brings me to some recent news: Mr. Obama, in a first-ever appearance by a sitting President before a Planned Parenthood gala, closed his speech to the gathered crowd with “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. God bless America. Thank you." (emphasis mine)  You have to wonder which God he was calling on to bless the number-one abortion provider in America, if not the world;  I’m sure Molech was pleased.

But when you read that Christian Post article, read it carefully: not once does he mention the word ‘abortion’, not once does he equate an unborn child with being human.

(ChicksontheRight on Facebook)
Neither do any abortion advocates.

He devalues the human life which hasn’t been born yet, and he does it in the face of the news of the horrors within the walls of Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortuary, where living babies, clear of the womb, had their spines severed at the neck because they were supposed to have died from abortion and didn’t (I’ll only mention in passing that Gosnell had a habit it clipping off the babies’ feet and storing them in jars).

How, you might ask, could something like this happen?  All you have to do is read some of Planned Parenthood’s literature propaganda to find out: to them, and to the rest of the pro-abortion people, an unborn child isn’t a child – it’s a ‘fetus’ or a ‘blob of cells’ or, in a particularly Orwellian twist, they’re a ‘choice’.

By redefining words, Planned Parenthood and the pro-aborts in this nation and all over the world have trained themselves and others to dehumanize the unborn child in order to make it more socially acceptable to slaughter them wholesale (fifty-million and rising since 1973); Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others didn’t even come close to that level of mass-murder.  They’ve redefined the word ‘child’ to mean something other than ‘the unborn human being in the womb’; what they redefined the word to mean changes depending on whom you ask: is it a child one it’s clear of the womb (ask Kermit Gosnell, he’ll tell you ‘No’; so will Mr. Obama, who voted against every piece of ‘born-alive’ legislation that ever came before him while he served in the Illinois Senate); is it a child once it toddles; is it a child once it speaks its first words; is it a child once it walks; is it a child once it votes Democrat?

Considering the Affordable Care Act, which allows a child to be defined as anyone under the age of 26 (that’s how old one can be to remain on their parent’s health-care plan, something previously cut off at 18), somebody’s going to have to come up with a definition of ‘child’ which everyone can agree on.

Yeah, I know – wishful thinking on my part.

Some more wishful thinking.  If there was something out there, some way of teaching people that every human being, born or unborn, has intrinsic worth and value, we could instill that knowledge and belief in people, rather than the current trend towards teaching folks that, because we’re all just animals – no better or worse than a rat, a pig, or a dog.

I wonder what that teaching might be.

Don’t you?

No comments: