Over a year ago I wrote about the Israelites conquer of Canaan. At that time, Lydia McGrew was saying that:
- If God kills babies (as with The Flood or The Passover in Egypt) then we must accept it as just even though babies are innocents. The justification is that, because we belong to God and because He has power over life and death, He can do whatever with us.
- If humans kill babies it is unjust and no matter what they are murderers because babies are innocents.
- If it looks to us as if God commanded those people to kill babies (as a plain reading of the Old Testament does look), then either something is wrong with those people, or with our vision.
This is consonant with the Pro-Life position that abortion is a crime of murder. However; it is also the position of Pro-Life groups that women who buy an abortion are not guilty of having bought a murder. This is because…
Well, that’s where it gets impossible to understand what they say. Every other explanation they put forward is a contradiction to the one before it; yet they keep on as if it weren’t. The result is that anyone trying to follow the logic or to make a sound and consistent judgment–anyone trying to be just–is stymied. We are kept from justice by the arguments. The result is one must simply walk away from the debate without ever seeing what justice would look like in the case of a mother who buys her child’s death. I think this is done on purpose. I think that people are being warded-off from seeing something.
I also don’t think anyone is so stupid as to try to hide from everyone that mothers who buy abortions are guilty of murder, and (hypothetically, if abortion were illegal) a crime which should be punished. So that’s not what they are hiding with the lies and contradictions. Five year olds can follow that logic. So what are they hiding?
Here’s what I think: Pro-Lifers, a multitude of whom are professed Christians, are hiding their belief that, on the issue of babies, women are like God. They believe that the child belongs to the mother as its creator, just as Christians believe we all belong to God as our creator. They believe that because women give birth, women–like God–have power over life. They believe that therefore we must not trespass on a mother’s power to kill their creations.
My theory of their belief is consistent with the Feminist belief that a woman’s body is her temple to herself, and whatever is within is hers to do with as she will. Feminists are merely more honest about it. It also explains why they have called themselves Pro-Life instead of Anti-Abortion. The term “pro-life” is benign and soothing, while the term “anti-abortion” inherently denies the goddesses . Above all, it distracts from the essence shared by both the Feminist and Pro-Life movements. That essence is the desire to worship women.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
Here’s what I think: Pro-Lifers, a multitude of whom are professed Christians, are hiding their belief that, on the issue of babies, women are like God. They believe that the child belongs to the mother as its creator, just as Christians believe we all belong to God as our creator. They believe that because women give birth, women–like God–have power over life. They believe that therefore we must not trespass on a mother’s power to kill their creations.
Excellent insight. It adds a lot of logic to pro-choice rhetoric that never occurred to me before.
(Also, I think that’s a pretty admirable summary of an argument I recall you disagreeing with.)
I think the unspoken logical argument in the pro life movement is that women shouldn’t be punished not because they are sinless or lack moral agency, but because they may have been deceived. This argument depends on our sympathy naturally being given to a truly deceived person, and sympathy desperately wants to not hold them accountable for their sin as well as relieve them of the consequences and resulting suffering. Undeceived, fully-aware active agents do not benefit from this sympathy trigger.
The possibility of full deception on the part of the woman exists in Scripture, and becomes an immediate unspoken or sub conscious rationalization crutch for men to give into one of men’s (and Adam’s) greatest fear – putting God before a woman and then bearing the consequences of doing so… death.
Once this hidden argument is spelled out, it is easy to reconcile with Scripture. The woman, fully deceived in Gen 3, was not spared out of sympathy. She was both immediately and indirectly asked about her sin and fully punished by God. Being deceived is clearly no barrier to being questioned about the sin or to receive punishment. Adam, the undeceived one, was also punished.
The political advantage for the pro life movement is that by not holding women accountable for the abortions they have had as laid out in Scripture, the pro lifers subtly make a power claim over God’s word, that of believing they can act against Scripture and are entitled to relieve women of the consequences of having an abortion rather than follow the model God himself set for us. The claimant who can wave away Gid’s Word often appears powerful indeed.
This power claim over Scripture is both enticing to those who are susceptible to men who appear to have much power, and especially to those who have already abortions and don’t want to be confronted with what that have done.
Unfortunately, this leaves the pro life movement sitting on a power claim that is a lie. This weakness will forever undermine this movement
The path into the light is to acknowledge that God does not withhold accountability or punishment even if you are fully deceived. Women who sin in procuring abortion will be held fully accountable on their day of judgement. Men are commanded to put God before woman, and to act in their masculine leadership role to wash their wives in the Word and rebuke sin. A husband’s failure to do so will be held accountable on his day of judgement, and hopefully singer by other godly men.
I find myself agreeing with you here Cane. It is fully consistent with what some around these parts have been pointing out (yourself included?): most Christian “churches” are focused on serving (worshiping?) women, not God.
Agreed.
Since converting, I have always thought of abortion as a sacrifice of innocents for the vices of the parents. Demonic in essence. It is a worship of other goods over the holy act of pro-creation in which God gives us the one and only opportunity to partake of the act of creation as an instrument of his love for humanity.
The woman puts herself on a table and decides to eat her bloody apple instead of nursing a baby.
And the crowds go wild with glee at her ability to chose, no matter which choice she makes.
There’s another dynamic here. Pro-lifers strongly identify with their role of saving individual babies. I think they believe they can save more babies by going easy of the women and changing their hearts.
Also, I think some abortion-procuring women are deceived but many are simply hard-hearted harlots.
Pingback: How liars come to believe their own lies | Zippy Catholic
Good insight. Modernity in general views men (human beings) as gods, and this is a particular instance of modernity viewing women as gods in particular over their own bodies and sexual powers.
This fits with Ted Cruz’s assertion that what we should focus on when a woman kills her unborn child is not her killing the child, but the fact that as a woman she has the ability to bring life:
Ugh.
Cane, this whole thing smacks of what happened in Jeremiah 44.
Wives burning incense to their “queen of heaven”.
Husbands turning a blind eye.
Husbands then rejecting the righteousness of God (they KNOW better), and then doubling down:
16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of YHWH, we will not hearken unto thee.
17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?
Women run amok. Worshipping themselves. Emasculated men worshipping the “divine feminine”.
Amongst so many other things, abortion is witchcraft.
@Dalrock
That is exactly the sort of statement I had in mind when I wrote the post.
@Torsten
Welcome.
I’ll come back to your point shortly.
Pingback: The Shadows Cast by Goddess Idols | Things that We have Heard and Known
“Above all, it distracts from the essence shared by both the Feminist and Pro-Life movements. That essence is the desire to worship women.”
Correct. That is exactly the assumption and motivation. Inadvertently, Trump’s comment about punishing women open this sluice, and revealed the ‘cuck’ or woman-worship of supposed conservatives.
In the modern West, females essentially worship, and deify, themselves. And the vast majority of males also worship females. Few males or females, of course, would admit to this. Not too many Christians probly would :O)
The dynamic is easier for those over age 60 or so to recognize. Neo-romanticism in America has been ascendant since the 1930s, especially in popular culture. By the Sixties, it exploded and provided the foundation for further fem-cultness. The goddess-movements (beginning, really, in the Fifties with Black Madonna resurgence in Europe) exposed only the surface of the phenomena, but it would not be overstatement to observe that the practical religion of America, and certainly of the modern Anglosphere, is Woman. Or female-ness in general, if you prefer.
Pingback: Observations | chokingonredpills
Pingback: Christian goddess worship; we are not worthy! | Dalrock
Pingback: Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: No Mercy for the Functionally Perfect | Things that We have Heard and Known