A Few Thoughts on Easy Versus Hard (part 6)

Life is finite, precious, and disposable.

We’ve become a society that no longer places a measurable value on life, except when it serves a political agenda.  We can “coo” and “ah” over babies and small children, at the same time that we call for their destruction.

As I noted earlier in this series we’ve become a consumer society where we throw away the broken to get the newest and neatest thing to replace it.  Why are we surprised when people treat life with exactly the same approach? 

Under the guise of choice, we have made the killing of the unborn a woman’s right.  The women and men who support this right now argue they should have an uncontested and government funded ability to destroy the unwanted up to the moment of birth, but why should it stop there?  For that matter, why should it be only a woman’s choice?  In a society where the moral value of life is relative, what imperative says we must keep alive someone who successfully emerges from the womb and takes their first breath?  I am told there are a number of late term abortions where the fetus emerges alive and is killed, so why should we limit woman’s choice once the child is “born?”

Those who support abortion cite the evils of the world a disadvantaged or unwanted child will face and how it is far better for all concerned if the woman makes a choice that is right for her and the life she carries, preferably without interference from third parties.  After all what does a fetus know, and how can they make an “informed” decision on their own life. 

We have become conditioned to be outraged at the loss of life, but only when the media makes a big deal about it.  Activists have created movements suggesting some lives matter more than others to help us become outraged at the loss of life, but again -- only when the media makes a big deal about it.  We are supposed to come together to condemn violence and death, but only when the media highlights it for ratings.  All other times we are told to ignore the man behind the curtain.

Within our major metropolitan centers, we see hundreds of killings a year, yet where is the national outrage against gang violence?  As I noted in the last post about this – it really and truly is about the theater the political media can create to further their agenda and financial interests, it has little to do with a true moral standard that we as a society can agree to. 

One side would have us believe because we have a constitutional right to own a gun we are a terrible nation killing each other with them, the other side suggests if it weren’t for the decay within major cities we wouldn’t have any gun deaths.  Each of these statements are demonstrably false but reflect the fact those who have deep emotions regarding the issue of guns (both against and for) choose emotional points rather than logical and supportable arguments, because logic doesn’t stir the masses to the same degree.

When we began our nation, we had a relatively homogenous Judeo-Christian morality that served as the basis for our laws.  What we see today is a widening rejection of that morality and in turn the rejection of our law.  I believe it is an unfortunate consequence of a widening belief suggesting we each get to choose what is morally acceptable and therefore we get to choose what laws we like, and what laws we reject.  This latter statement is clearly supported by the political polarization of the left in their establishment of “sanctuary cities” springing up in opposition to the deportation of immigrants who’ve entered this country illegally.

When rejection of some laws becomes a widely accepted practice, how long will it be before we question the validity of all laws?  Those who would suggest there is no such thing as a “slippery slope” argue that one small change does not mean we are forsaking all societal standards.  Their support for this assertion is almost always to point to other societies as proof, but we are vastly different from the societies they point to.  In fact, those societies are becoming more like us and are beginning to see the same issues we’ve faced for years.  The “slippery slope” argument almost always comes up when they argue courts have the right to ignore/overturn laws they disagree with, rather than reach agreement those laws should be repealed through the legislative processes of our Republic. 

As we see in the mass shootings and other violent activity – the criminals involved are unconstrained by the law, and perhaps any moral standard.  Does this mean they are mentally ill?  If they have an individual moral compass, and we as a society argue that is okay, what then should restrain them and why should we condemn their actions?

(to be continued)