By Craig Funston
[This is the second part of lst week’s column. Read it and reap.]
I could believe in abortion…if it wasn’t for economics. I’m not sure if anyone is making the connection between the millions of missing babies over the past thirty years and economics, but we have a serious people shortage in this country. Let’s see: that would mean a consumer shortage, a labour shortage, and, while we’re at it, let’s throw in a grandchildren shortage.
Think of all the aborted babies that would now be in their mid-thirties. That’s a lot of consumers, employees, as well as plain old chilren and grandchildren.
And while the issue is serious here, it’s perilous in places like Japan, where the deathrate exeeds the birthrate. That means there are more people dying than those replacing them. In another generation or two, there will be a such a counsumer, employee, and generational shortage in some countries that their respective economies may collapse.
The more kids we have (at least two to replace the mother and father and carry on society) the better. Our economy works effectively this way. Every society for the past 10,000 years has done this. Parents provide for kids when they’re young; and kids provide for their parents when they’re old.
I know that sounds crass, that is, to keep on having children (rather than keep on not having them). Children are necessary to fill up the gaps in the population needs. Importing consumers, employees, and the next generation (via immigration) is one way to fill the void. It just seems second-best to me. Part of the reason replacement is so necessary is we have wiped out major segments of two generations.
I could believe in abortion…if it wasn’t for logic. How many babies have been saved when their mother was mortally wounded or there has been some distress with the baby—even though they are only five months old in the womb? Yet other babies in the womb, in another setting–even older than five months–are savagely butchered in the mother’s womb for no logical reason.
Advanced medical procedures in the womb that would appear to be a waste, then, if that “collection of cells and tissues” is not fully human. There are some very serious inconsistencies in logic here, people.
Another logical fallacy is the over-population myth. This is often initiated by academics in their ivory towers, then perpetuated by their dupes in the sterile world of liberal universities, urban settings, and leftist media. We do not have a population problem: this planet is far from overcrowded.
If we have too much of anything, it’s too much blatant greed and corruption, too much rampant immorality and promiscuity. There is sufficient food and space, jobs and futures, for all.
I could believe in abortion…if it wasn’t for semantics. Interesting word games here, whereby the living child is renamed a “fetus,” thus diminishing its humanness., in order to salve the conscience of murder And we speak of “choice,” but whose choice is it? Certainly the baby has no choice in the matter of its life or death.
So in other words, if you’re working with words, please use them correctly.
I suggest that the worst misnomer is “Planned Parenthood”; it gets to me everytime I hear it. I always thought that if you planned something, you would actually go out and do it. Right? So if you are planning parenthood, what are you really planning? Wouldn’t “Selective Parenthood” or “Planned Deathhood” be more accurate? Even Planned Non-Parenthood would be fine with me.
I am so grateful for the many organizations that are pro-active in saving babies’ lives (from the womb of injustice), and often restoring the mothers themselves, allowing them to get out of the treadmill of despair.
After all, “all lives matter.”