One of the funniest things about progressives is the absolute pretzels they must bend themselves in to in order to justify their moral systems. For instance, there is the case of the couple in Uniontown, Ohio, who have been given the wrong baby. Or so they say. You see, the couple in question asked for the female in the pair to be artificially inseminated, so they could have a child, as they couldn’t have one on their own. The problem is the sperm bank made a “mistake,” and caused the child to come out half black and half white. They accordingly filed suit against the sperm bank. They’re reasoning? The little Ohio town they live in is so prejudiced that they’re having a hard time finding a place to have their daughter’s hair cut. They have to drive a long way, and to a “bad part of town,” you see, as there is no-one in their local area who knows how to cut “black hair.”
There’s one little catch in this entire story, one you won’t hear in the mainstream news (after all, they’re called the mainstream news, not the accurate news). Are you ready? There’s a very specific reason this couple couldn’t have a child.
To get this straight, two women in a lesbian marriage live in an area that apparently accepts their lifestyle, but won’t accept a child who is half black and half white. Not only is this bad enough, but the two women don’t, apparently, accept this child, either, because they’re suing over it. What would the remedy be, precisely? Moving them to an area that’s more accepting of people with dark skin? Taking the baby back? How do you remedy the existence of a child?
Aren’t liberals supposed to be supportive of, tolerant of, accepting of all sorts and types of people? Who’s ever heard of a community of white bigots that tolerates married homosexual couples in their midst? Rather than suing, shouldn’t they be marching in the streets for justice and haircuts? Or perhaps celebrating this little symbol of diversity?
Another case of a progressive being hoists with their own petard is the case of the women’s college who refused to accept one specific woman in their student government. The problem is, you see, the woman is actually a transgendered man. As one of the women said, “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.”
Can you spell i-r-o-n-y?
Aren’t you supposed to accept that this person is now a woman because they claim to be a woman? Where is the justice? Where is the tolerance? We’ve almost reverted back to being Victorian in our demands — a woman must actually be born with female body parts in order to take a leadership position at a woman’s college?
Step on your own petard, and you will certainly be hoisted.
But herein lies one a fundamental lesson of life without morals, or with morals based on the situation and feelings of those involved. If you don’t have morals grounded in something outside humanity — even something as archaic as someone called “god” — then you don’t have morals at all. What you have, instead, is a rollicking pile of mud. Whoever ends up on top gets to set the moral codes.
Don’t bother about logic, or anyone getting out clean. Just win.
Three stories caught my eye this week, all related to a single topic.
I have three children. Each prayed for, desired, loved, cherished. For years, I have watched pro-abortion friends and family dote on them and shower them with love. They treat my children as precious and special, as valuable members of society—but only because I wanted them. Had I desired an abortion, these same people who rave about my son’s wit or marvel at my daughters’ smiles would have been the first to drop everything and drive me to the nearest Planned Parenthood to have them “taken care of.” My children’s worth, in the eyes of the pro-abortion community and of our fecundophobic society, only exists because I wanted them to exist. -The Federalist
Apple and Facebook have both announced that will now offer egg-freezing – for non-medical purposes – for their employees (which runs at least $10,000, plus a $500 to $800 annual storage fee.) For these companies, it means two things. One, there is a demand from their employees for such an offer. Second, the companies themselves see some benefit to this. What it sounds like is this: “It’s really not practical or productive for people to try to both work and parent during the ages when they’ll be most useful as a worker, so let’s just take care of that issue. Work, work, work…try and become a parent later.” -Acton
In social psychology, there is a classic theory called “exchange theory.” It is a bit cold-blooded, but it predicts that a person’s actions will be based on trying to find a balance of give and get. Each person’s resources — of all kinds, including money, looks, background — are traded back and forth for a “good deal.” For example, a “good deal” scenario could be a woman who makes an excellent living pairing up with a man who is a writer and is willing to work at home and be the primary child care person. … While most women still want marriage, they don’t want it at just any price. They don’t want it if it scuttles their dreams. Marriage is not dead — not by a long shot. It is still, to most of us, the house we wish to build for our love, our lover and our children. -CNN
There is a common thread running through all three of these stories, and, in fact, running through our progressive culture — treating people as objects.
Children are people, which means they can’t be reduced to some balance of economics and personal satisfaction. They aren’t earrings or shoes, or something else you grab on to just to fulfill an bundle of desires for some period of your life. Men are people, too, although much of the feminist movement seems to have forgotten that little tidbit of information.
The danger few people see when reducing other people to objects to be chosen for convenience, accepted because their net worth to me, or to be managed and changed to better fit our personal vision of the future is that once you’ve made everyone else an object, you become an object as well. The prison of objectification we create to manipulate the world around us into the shape we prefer is, in the end, a self-imprisonment. There’s no way to make someone else an object without making yourself an object, as well.
You see, it’s a bummer when people discover that people are, well… actually — how shall I say this? — PEOPLE!
I mean, I really sorry to intrude on your progressive dreams of making everyone like carrots and hate beef. But there isn’t, you see, much I can do about it. We can argue with reality, but arguing with this reality essentially comes down to arguing with yourself. Spitting into the wind, so to speak. What you do unto others will be done unto you.
The essence of progressive thought — treating people as changeable objects, pieces on a chess board who can be, with the right pressure and guidance, moved into the right position to make the world a better place — is, in the end, a losing game. People just aren’t like that.
It’s a bummer, but they’re actually people, you see.
Christians aren’t allowed to refuse to promote messages they find offensive on t-shirts, mugs, or other promotional items (no word yet on whether or not Muslims or atheists must follow these same rules). Christians must bake cakes that promote homosexual marriage, even though it’s clearly not tied to any sort of discrimination against homosexuals. Christians [...] [...]
One of the more fundamental points on which modern political discourse is founded. Can individuals be trusted to do the right thing, or must the government step in to ensure people do the right thing, because individual people can’t really be trusted? Should the government decide what “consent” means, for instance? Or what a person [...] [...]
Copyright © 2014 Thinking in Christ - All Rights Reserved
Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa