“I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.” - US Rep.
This is a very powerful column and an encouragement to those who believe in life. The idea of individual human dignity and the rights that it entails is the key to civilization. When we put the individual before the state, we reversed the idea that a strong person has the right to dominate or kill a more vulnerable one. The de-civilization process is the elimination of objective truth and individual rights. It is worth fighting, as you say, but it also seems as though that fight will never end.
I wish we would humanize the situation by calling it what it is. Abortion is killing babies, plain and simple, stop sanitizing it by calling it abortion. I would like to think that if more people were informed and saw the truth of the horror that is happening hearts and minds would change. Incrementalism may not be "necessary" if this were to happen. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". It is past time to stand up for life.
Well written. Your article brought a question to mind that I has never occurred to me. The "long march" was the idea that they could fully capture all the institutions without the need for military forces. But did Gramsci and his friends foresee that eventually that push would reach a tipping point when the average sleepy person with an average level of common sense would look at the things being pushed from above and say "too far"? Did they think that their side would be far enough in power that it wouldn't matter? Or did they have enough imagination to realize this could push a culture to a breaking point and lead to direct conflict? I know Marx acknowledged a certain level of resistance that would have to be eliminated. Did Gramsci?
Great question that I’m unable to answer. Gramsci’s writings aren’t as well known or available (at least in the US) as Marx’s, but I think it’s safe to safe that all the early communists acknowledged resistance. Whether it must inevitably reach the “armed” stage or not, I’m not sure, but none feared it.
Thanks for the honesty. There are so many bringing up concerns about civil war. Even Biden referenced a "cold civil war" in one of his early speeches. Some seem to be clamoring for it. I think the level of street violence hasn't been this high since the 1960s in the US, so it's easy to let your thinking wander into that possibility. Perhaps even see it as inevitable. I prefer to modify a well-worn phrase, "plan for the worst; work toward the best."
Another grand-slam, Kelly! It's too bad that "Hollywood football" has passed baseball as the favorite national sport - just as "Hollywood politics" has won (for now) over common sense and core values. Keep fighting the good fight, my friend!
Back in the 1980's several pro-life members of Congress advocated for legislation establishing fetal "personhood" under the 14th Amendment. It never went anywhere, and the idea has mostly been dropped. Again, I would get back to the traditional role of the government in protecting life. Women, of course, should have "bodily autonomy" - reproductive "freedom," whatever you wish to call it - but once a human life has been created, the state has an interest in protecting it (if it wants to). If a state declines to protect innocent lives, then there's nothing to stop it from promoting things like Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program, where the government encourages people to choose death. For instance, Paralympian and veteran Christine Gauthier testified that a Veterans Affairs Canada employee offered her MAID as an option when she was fighting to install a wheelchair lift or ramp at her house. Similarly, a Canadian writer revealed that the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) has organized training seminars on patients who sought MAID due to socio-economic factors such as poverty and loneliness. That is why the abortion issue, ultimately, is really about the government's role in protecting and promoting life. Resolving it is complicated.
This is a very powerful column and an encouragement to those who believe in life. The idea of individual human dignity and the rights that it entails is the key to civilization. When we put the individual before the state, we reversed the idea that a strong person has the right to dominate or kill a more vulnerable one. The de-civilization process is the elimination of objective truth and individual rights. It is worth fighting, as you say, but it also seems as though that fight will never end.
I wish we would humanize the situation by calling it what it is. Abortion is killing babies, plain and simple, stop sanitizing it by calling it abortion. I would like to think that if more people were informed and saw the truth of the horror that is happening hearts and minds would change. Incrementalism may not be "necessary" if this were to happen. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". It is past time to stand up for life.
Well written. Your article brought a question to mind that I has never occurred to me. The "long march" was the idea that they could fully capture all the institutions without the need for military forces. But did Gramsci and his friends foresee that eventually that push would reach a tipping point when the average sleepy person with an average level of common sense would look at the things being pushed from above and say "too far"? Did they think that their side would be far enough in power that it wouldn't matter? Or did they have enough imagination to realize this could push a culture to a breaking point and lead to direct conflict? I know Marx acknowledged a certain level of resistance that would have to be eliminated. Did Gramsci?
Great question that I’m unable to answer. Gramsci’s writings aren’t as well known or available (at least in the US) as Marx’s, but I think it’s safe to safe that all the early communists acknowledged resistance. Whether it must inevitably reach the “armed” stage or not, I’m not sure, but none feared it.
Thanks for the honesty. There are so many bringing up concerns about civil war. Even Biden referenced a "cold civil war" in one of his early speeches. Some seem to be clamoring for it. I think the level of street violence hasn't been this high since the 1960s in the US, so it's easy to let your thinking wander into that possibility. Perhaps even see it as inevitable. I prefer to modify a well-worn phrase, "plan for the worst; work toward the best."
Another grand-slam, Kelly! It's too bad that "Hollywood football" has passed baseball as the favorite national sport - just as "Hollywood politics" has won (for now) over common sense and core values. Keep fighting the good fight, my friend!
Back in the 1980's several pro-life members of Congress advocated for legislation establishing fetal "personhood" under the 14th Amendment. It never went anywhere, and the idea has mostly been dropped. Again, I would get back to the traditional role of the government in protecting life. Women, of course, should have "bodily autonomy" - reproductive "freedom," whatever you wish to call it - but once a human life has been created, the state has an interest in protecting it (if it wants to). If a state declines to protect innocent lives, then there's nothing to stop it from promoting things like Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program, where the government encourages people to choose death. For instance, Paralympian and veteran Christine Gauthier testified that a Veterans Affairs Canada employee offered her MAID as an option when she was fighting to install a wheelchair lift or ramp at her house. Similarly, a Canadian writer revealed that the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) has organized training seminars on patients who sought MAID due to socio-economic factors such as poverty and loneliness. That is why the abortion issue, ultimately, is really about the government's role in protecting and promoting life. Resolving it is complicated.