Pro-life and the great chain of being

Those who espouse the notion that taking life through abortions is not only sinful but absolutely immoral and contrary to scripture, because life is precious and god's gift to us, and so on, are not truly interested in "life." They are really concerned specifically with human life. If this were not so they would avoid taking life in other ways, such as not killing animals, even plants, insects, and so on. They would certainly not endorse taking the lives of other people, such as Iraqis, Arabs, and other non-white western Europeans. Of course a prohibition on taking lives would mean we would all have to starve, unless, of course, we compromised by begging for our food which would mean that we simply passed the buck to those who donate the food. Rice and wheat and barley have life just as does everything else except for inanimate objects. This whole argument about human life rests upon the assumption that there is a great chain of being. At the bottom of this chain are the lowest creatures of all, like plankton and such, and then moving up the chain to shrimp and such, and then to fish, and bigger fish, and lower animals and higher animals, and then through human forms such as Black people, Indians, Asians, and of course right on up to western European caucasians who are the highest of all. Thus implicitly if not explicitly it is perfectly okay to destroy life all the way up to the presumed highest form of life, western European caucasians. Historically this has certainly been the case as any serious student of world history knows. And this can be the only rationale for the anti-abortion movement (these people still eat, wear leather shoes and belts and so on). So ultimately the only basis for the sanctity of human life is because we humans say so. If we could talk to cattle or lambs or deer or other animals, and even plants, do you think they would place human life above their own? I don't think so. But, then, they are only dumb beasts by our definition, not theirs. It wasn't all that long ago that Tasmanians and Australian Aborigines were still being hunted with dogs, and sometimes used as dog food. And we know very well what happened to American Indians, victims of the most vicious genocide ever.

This does not mean I am in favor of abortion. I believe abortions should be avoided wherever possible. But if they sometimes have to occur they should certainly be legal and performed by doctors who know more than simply the use of coathangers in the alley. The belief that contraception is a form of abortion strikes me as the ultimate in absurdities and of course if outlawed could only result in more abortions rather than fewer. Similarly, the idea that human life begins precisely at the moment of conception strikes me as extreme, and extremely unlikely. I cannot believe that a few cells are the equivalent of a human being.

Anyway, it is my conviction that if people truly do not want a child bad enough to consider aborting it, they should not have it. Why bring unwanted children into the world to be abused and neglected? It is not as if child abuse and neglect is not rampant in American culture. Indeed, I would wager that most people in the world cannot even conceive of child abuse as it sometimes occurs in the United States: burning children, starving them, beating them to death, breaking their arms and legs and ribs and so on. Hawaiians, for example, think making children sleep alone is a form of child abuse. Childen in most parts of New Guinea are never even punished even for the most egregious acts of vandalism or whatever. It would never even occur to a New Guinea Highlander that a child should be punished as small children are not regarded as capable of acting other than as they do. As they grow older they are held more and more responsible.

Someone once said that he believed in abortion because the alternatives were worse. I agree. So let us not even consider overturning Roe vs Wade. And we certainly don't need a Roberts on the Supreme Court.