When the question is posed “If abortion were illegal, should women who get abortions be punished?” and the answer comes back “No, because…” you should disregard everything that follows. The truth isn’t in that person. If it were, then they wouldn’t make up a litany of excuses that wouldn’t pass the muster of third-grade education.
Understand that what Pro-Life groups and other abortion apologists are seeking is a way to keep women from having to ask for mercy. Instead they demand it. Anyone guilty of any crime can ask for mercy. It’s legal and everything. No one–not myself, not Zippy, not Trump–have spoken against mercy for women who killed their children in ignorance, or under duress. But demanding mercy destroys the opportunity for mercy to do its work because anyone in a position to demand mercy can’t actually use it.
That’s it, though. That’s why Pro-Lifers refuse to even discuss theoretically, if abortion was hypothetically illegal, whether women who murder their children should be punished. It is is the plank of the Pro-Life movement which codifies their belief that women are above the need for asking for mercy. To be above the need for mercy is to be functionally perfect, and that is a characteristic of the divine.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
Women are weaker so when a man takes a hit and is in a re-cooperation phase, he often looks to women for the easier and less ambitious way of conducting one’s self. This is not actually worship, but mere observation…
A.J.P.
“Women must be treated as functionally perfect.”
This, alas, explains much.
@Alan
I don’t understand what you wrote.
Excellent insight.
[CC: Thanks!]
Mercy makes sense only in the context of Justice. Otherwise mercy is merely indulgence.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2016/05/10 | Free Northerner
Pingback: Shame is beyond its expiry date. | Dark Brightness
I’m seeing too many bloggers suggest that woman are handled too nicely, without understanding the utility of woman’s nature..: I’m not sure if you’re one of those bloggers, so I have come at it from a different angle.
@Alan
What is it specifically against which you are warning? The only blog I’m responsible for is this one.
Pingback: Observations 11/5 | chokingonredpills
Related to the topic of women asking vs demanding, there is a pattern in the Gospels where Jesus first either makes a woman ask for what she wants, or first makes sure she understands that it is His choice to grant her request or not. There may be examples of Him doing this with men as well, but no examples come to mind.
In John 2:
In Luke 8:
Matt 15:
@Dalrock
Yessir. We’ve talked about it before and the upcoming posts will be more of the same…with hot sauce.
C.C.,
I think that your confusion is starting to confuse me. However, I was specific when I said that holding women to different standards does not suggest that the women are infallible, nor does it suggest that they are worthy of worship. That women are treated differently and even at times less judgmentally than men suggests more that women are understood to have a different function and ability.
Well, if this is making sense so far, I am starting to think that the civil courts cannot be taken back as they are too far gone. Rather Christian men need protection from more closer and communal ecclesiastical courts. I’m getting tired of seeing otherwise savvy people throw effort into a corrupt, fake “justice” system because they think they remember it working properly 50 years ago and so they can be turned around with a good effort. Such an effort might prove worthwhile in the medium-to-long-term future, but for now Christians amongst the insane neo-Marxist regime need protection right away, and that’s regardless if Mr Trump succeeds in making Christian practice for the United States in toto have, as he puts it, “have a strong flavour”, but this second paragraph only means something if the first one does too…
Best regards,
A.J.P.
@Alan
Can you find any instances in the Bible to support this? I’ve specifically looked for it, and I found none. A woman, like anyone in submission to an authority, has protections in place. Anyone not in submission to an authority doesn’t. She (or he) is on her own and should be held to the same standards.
I agree whole-heatedly. In fact, for a good long while I have had no desire to “take them back”. Your point “they think they remember” is absolutely true and excellent.
Edited to add: To be fair, your first comment on this post said something about taking a hit and recuperation and looking to women for some reason or other. It did not say “holding women to different standards does not suggest that the women are infallible, nor does it suggest that they are worthy of worship.”
Dear Cane,
I don’t want to derail this topic, but someone among your blogfriends pointed me to your direction because I wanted some advice. Could you contact me in the email I provided wordpress?
[CC: Sent]
I think that your confusion is starting to confuse me. However, I was specific when I said that holding women to different standards does not suggest that the women are infallible, nor does it suggest that they are worthy of worship. That women are treated differently and even at times less judgmentally than men suggests more that women are understood to have a different function and ability.
Your first comment wasn’t clear. If I squint a little, I think you were saying it’s okay to treat women with a different standard at a personal level inside the home, with the implication that a different standard for women is permissible.
However, Cane’s blogpost is about the public discourse regarding women on the issue of Pro-Life, not different standards in general.
It is not that using any different standard for women is worship. It is that the different standard being used for women on the issue of Pro-Life is observably a type of worship; one which treats women as sacred victims who can do no wrong.
The argument is not against different standards. It’s against this particular different standard which falsely elevates the women who murder their unborn child as blameless.
That particular different standard is false. It has the form of worship, which makes it idolatry. We must reject that lie and stand firm on the truth.
@SH
Nailed it.
Women must be judged differently because they are not eligible for certain roles, despite what lawless individuals and groups say. Calling a dog a duck, does not make that dog one, even if it’s thrown into the water.
A.J.P.
@Alan
My first response is that you have changed to a related, but tangential subject. This is a dead common error whenever the discussion is about women and I’m sure I’ve done it myself.
Second, our (the would-be lawful people’s) problem is less about calling dogs ducks, and more about justice according to transgressions of the water’s boundary. There are rules about who can go in the water and according to what circumstances. Justice is relative first and foremost with what law has been transgressed; not who transgressed it. That some call transgressive dogs as ducks is a symptom of the lack of justice. If we want it sorted then the very least we can do is bear witness to the truth. Before anyone protests: Partiality and mercy are separate things.
Third, saying that dogs have been thrown into the water is a mile-wide hole for unjust people to exploit; either for personal thrill of lawlessness, or to excuse themselves from the responsibility of warning their neighbors. Dogs, by the pack, are jumping in the water under their own power, and against the law that we are told is written on the hearts of ducks and dogs.
Alan: “However, I was specific when I said that holding women to different standards does not suggest that the women are infallible, nor does it suggest that they are worthy of worship. That women are treated differently and even at times less judgmentally than men suggests more that women are understood to have a different function and ability.”
There is a two-fold issue here, one in defining “different standards” and the other being a consistent, universal application of these different standards once we agree what they are.
Regarding “different standards,” obviously there has to be some limit in how differently women can be judged from men. They have agency after all. God punished Eve just as He punished Adam, and in doing so showed there is moral culpability on the part of woman just as with man. This precedent is fought by modern feminists (including ones in the pro-life movement) who seek to avoid punishing women at all. “Different standards” only makes sense in a society where egalitarianism is rejected and men and women are viewed as essentially different because their Creator designed them to be that way. Otherwise, egalitarianism requires equality in all facets in society.
So we’ve established that “different standards” only makes sense in a traditional society. But how might this look? In a traditional society men would be held to standards of how well they upheld masculinity and women would be held to standards of how well they upheld femininity. An able-bodied man who was too lazy to work in the fields could be disciplined for neglecting his fatherly duty to provide whereas a woman (who being physically weaker and more brittle) may not be held to the same standard. This is partly why God commands us to provide for widows (and orphans) specifically–He has given men the natural traits to provide for themselves. In a traditional society the ramifications for women who get abortions are brutal. Because abortion is incredibly unfeminine and contrary to the feminine trait of motherhood–which is to be a woman showing nurture, comfort, love, and care for her child–harsh punishment on the mother is required if true femininity is to be upheld and conserved.
A naïve young woman so deceived into believing it is okay to commit filicide certainly doesn’t show the responsibility required when it comes to voting, attending college, or enjoying any of the myriad other privileges we equate with responsible adulthood. This is the second half to universal application of the concept of “different standards.” There’s a reason we don’t charge three-year-olds who suffocate their infant siblings with first degree murder. But because we recognize their obvious deficiencies in personal agency, we limit what privileges they have. I cannot see how the pro-life feminist arguments against punishment don’t point to the same conclusion. Either way, the pro-life feminist position is illogical, unbiblical, and indefensible.
No, it’s perfectly fine to be motivated by a confluence of factors. It’s the narrowing down into only one that is sort of the single-minded way of thinking that normally leads to failure, a brittleness that is easy to subvert or starve itself. Coalitions, within a jurisdiction must be built between alpha-omegas and betas (no such thing as a pure alpha personality in the Christian context).
For the rest of your simile, “Cane Caldo”, at this point it’s wrong to worry about future exploitations, when the formerly functioning methods are already being exploited to a lethal degree.
Anyhow, I see you going back to the “women must be controlled” thing when I see it much more as “women and betas must be controlled” after all, women didn’t vote for themselves to get voting rights! Focusing too much on the sexual nature of women is getting it wrong because it breaks the coalition with the followers, the foot-soldiers, the betas.
A.J.P.
G.W., with some commenters, it’s like attacking the Maginot Line. 😉
Demanded Mercy is a mercy that is expected, and an expected mercy requires no repentance. I don’t know how a person comes to God without repentance. They are not doing women any favors. Literally, a damnable error.
@Alan
Really? All right, I’ll try that right now.
Alan, do what I say.
C.C.,
That’s a bit humorous.
G.W.,
You’ve written me a lot, that’s O.K., at any rate it’s kind of interesting that we both ended up using the word “brittle” in our responses that we both were writing at the same time.
No, I’m not going to wait until I’m in a traditional society to appreciate differences. I am looking for ways to culturally secede right now, and while that is unattractive for some people since it hinders their cash-flow, those people who want to live in the egalitarian world have to deal with things like higher suicide rates, fast food, and confusion while they prioritise what they will.
G.W., if you could show me where I definitively said that women should not be punished for it, then show me where I’m wrong. My contention is not with that aspect, but in the way it’s demanded, and it seems that wondering why a contender for the office of U.S.’ presidency is not talking about it, is not good.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
Alan,
I never said you were against punishment for women who seek abortions, rather my point was that the “different standards” you suggest requires us to treat men and women as essentially different–something that is antithetical to our current feminist society. In other words, it won’t happen on its own. I’m all for making this work (either by subverting feminism or seceding as you suggest), but right now we have the worst of both worlds–egalitarianism which allows women the right to vote, go to college, have independent careers, etc. and remnants of traditionalism which forgive women of responsibilities they should have inherited with their new found privileges. It isn’t unjust for us to demand that egalitarians live by their own standards and hold women accountable equally to men.
We have…
Well, the problem is that you’re identifying too much with the egalitarians you’re talking about. Unless, this is missionary work, in which case you need to be more focused on the Gospel, and less about the particularities of sexual responsibilities. It is obvious that the secular types don’t care about anything as long term as building functioning communities, so you’re way too many steps ahead, G.W.
There isn’t anything more to say here really, only that Christian traditionalism is much more holistic than those who would portray it as a more improved version of conservative family values politics. I’m glad that other ethnic groups have shamed so-called Christians by their own loyalty to their own communities, while the more pagan such as Orientals and Hindoos get pulled in with the rest of the pagans and those who would play soothsayer to the pagan establishment. That’s justice.
A.J.P.
@ Hope Deferred says:
May 11, 2016 at 5:26 pm
“Demanded Mercy is a mercy that is expected, and an expected mercy requires no repentance. I don’t know how a person comes to God without repentance. They are not doing women any favors. Literally, a damnable error.”
Correct. It’s all part of the “no judgement” cult, which is probably keeping more people in enmity with God than any other movement.
Oscar! Good to hear from you.
You’ve done a fine job on the Trump vs pro lifers/ abortion issue
[CC: Thanks Ton]
@ Cane:
Thanks. It’s been a busy couple of months.
You’d think some of these pro-lifers would have read Genesis.
I’m happy. Happy because I followed along this comment thread rather quickly. And I did so by realizing I would take no profit from being able to follow the sort of Uncertainty-Principle-ish debate Alan is conducting with others.
Lets try this:
Tell them what you are going to say
Then say it
Then tell them what you said
The Trump incident convinced me that most pro-life people don’t have a clue that a real life is involved.
The whole anti-Trump hoopla is another thing. I didn’t much care for him personally, but I can’t name any politician I respect at this point. A few may have had it in the past, but they lost it as they acted out their profession.
The profession demands crud and people are surprised a cruddy politician wins?
(Feel free to email me Cane if you want.)
Women must be given attention and guidance even when they do the right thing, to be commanded and so must the betas, ie. those who aren’t doing the right things in these circumstances, most likely because they aren’t clued in.
This is from the Prayer Book:
O ALMIGHTY God, which hast delivered this woman thy servaunte from the great paine and peril of childe birthe: Graunt we beseche the most mercifull Father, that she through thy help may bothe faithfully live, and walke in her vocation, accordyng to thy wil, in this lyfe present, and also may be partaker of everlastyng glory in the lyfe to come, throughe Jesus Christ our Lorde. Amen.
I think nowadays most people don’t want to trouble new mothers with this sacramental ritual, and it could be a systemic issue from the Christian perspective.
A.J.P.
I find Trump… well a lot of things but some how, Trump, who is very progressive keeps ending up the most conservative/ traditionalist (?) one of the bunch. Recently I read where women ie progressives are upset because in one of his books, Trump basically says a wife should be at home, tending to hearth, home and kids.
for damn sure not going to hear that from any one else in the gop or dnc
strange days indeed
Interesting discussion. For mercy to work, fear of punishment must first be in place.
Interesting discussion. For mercy to work, fear of punishment must first be in place.
Not just fear, but actual punishment/consequences to be dispensed. Justice.
Mercy is built on Justice. Without Justice, there is no transgression to offer Mercy for.