The concern for the rights of women has been, and still is, a central issue in our American society in 2015. Amongst the many “rights” that have been identified as critical to the freedom of American women, is the right to self-determination of what a woman can do with her own body; to include the aborting of a woman’s own fetus – a human life – should she believe it to be a burden and an inconvenience to her future decision-making.
And with a similar rise to national attention, the rights of homosexuals have also come to dominate the attention of the American society. The cause is similar: the right to self-determination of what a homosexually-oriented person can do with his or her own body; without restrictions from the societal and political opportunities of open and endorsed relationships in which the legal status of marriage brings with it.
I used the term “homosexually-oriented”, for as to this date, there appears to be scant information that informs us as to what physical factors are specific to homosexuality. While the encompassing layout of human genetics clearly orients mankind as a heterosexual creature – a necessary state for its existence – there appears to be little that genetically orients a person to homosexuality. To this date, no specific gene or gene group that renders a homosexual person has been realized.
In the case of women’s and homosexual persons’ rights, a strong call is being made to the American society that breeches the normalcy of equality and demands not only the rights as outlined, but also the respect and recognition of dignity from those who might disagree with any aspect of said rights. The American society is to unilaterally endorse and embrace a woman’s right to kill her future offspring, and likewise to unilaterally endorse and embrace a homosexual’s right to both legal and spiritual marriage; an institution whose history is solely concerned with the procreation of man. This is the breech of normalcy of equality: the demand that a person not only comply physically with a legal status regarding equality, but that a person conforms their preferences – their thinking – with that same legal status. It’s not enough to comply, one must conform.
What has been inviolable in American democracy is the absolute condition of human consciousness; that inner or self-knowledge of oneself, that self-determining governance of the human mind, and the conscience that unfolds with human consciousness. No real democracy violates human consciousness, though it does hope to affect human conscience, so that all persons governed by democracy might enjoy the opportunity to obtain its common fruits.
In America’s past, the framework for such efforts have always been built from an original premise; the sanctity of human consciousness and its singular right to free will of the mind. Its basis has been the recognition of absolute morals and natural laws that preclude the relative societal trends of behavior that would otherwise destabilize a democracy as a form of successful governance.
A democracy, by its nature, is a relative form of governance, yet its very existence is fully reliant upon absolute premises of human conduct. A democracy works under the assumption that its citizens should conform their activities within a scope of behaviors that have set boundaries. This is done through an attitude of compliance, yet it is clear statistically that there is a mean or an average to those behaviors; a central, absolute set of ethics and morals that demote compliance and endorse conscience.
In breeching the normalcy of equality – the denial of one’s foundational right to their own consciousness and its associated conscience – certain aspects of the campaign for women’s and homosexual’s rights have fashioned a Mobius strip that threatens their overarching purpose; the commonality of all men and human under the standard of human dignity.
That Mobius strip begins with the central tenant; that self-determination (free will) supersedes common good (absolute will). In the case of women’s rights, it is the belief that a woman has the natural, societal authority to kill its own unborn child in the pursuit of its daily preferences. In the case of the homosexual, it is the belief that the framework of the evolutionary, procreative effort of the human species – marriage – is subject to the daily preferences of human endeavor and pleasure by individuals not participating in that evolutionary cause; procreation. The first case is literally anti-procreative, and the second case impotent. This all implies that today’s American views procreation more as a commodity than a necessity; certainly a fatal assumption to any species and culture. From this central tenant comes a force that has the capacity to turn upon its creators; employing its own logic to do so.
We see already one consequence of legalized abortion; the preferential selection to abort the unborn female because of her sex. Prenatal screening detects gender, and legalized abortion permits gender discrimination, and our society cannot pass legislation that prohibits aborting an unborn female without denying a woman’s right to self-determination, as well as endorsing discrimination against the unborn male.
This may well hemorrhage over to the homosexual cause also, for should there, in the future, be determined a “gay gene”, or a set of conditions that promote a statistical occurrence of homosexuality, then would it not be sensible to predict a significant discrimination against carrying an unborn homosexual to full term and birth; all perfectly legalized? The very device employed to permit self-determination becomes the means by which to legally discriminate against women and homosexuals.
What I am chasing, through more logic than emotion, is the idea that paradoxes, such as the one outlined here, might well be markers for us to look hard at, and to consider that the premise that led to the paradox might well be flawed. If you built a car without brakes, can you then expect it to fulfill its purpose?
I believe the activists who promote such paradoxes are well aware of this dilemma to their ideological pursuit; which is why we see such a dramatic dogma towards the conformity of mind I referenced earlier. As genetics and man’s incremental evolution towards a better condition opposes those behaviors of mankind that run contrary to natural law – and anything contrary to procreation is contrary to man’s existence – then it is left to psychological indoctrination, coupled with an immediacy of need, to promote an illogical position. This invariably precludes democracy and ensures some form of rising fascism.
My argument is not anti-woman or anti-homosexual, rather it is one based upon a single assumption; that all of life is sacred, and this sacredness is found in the recognition and submission to well-founded principles of natural law, observation, assessment, and reason. To say that an unborn life is a human being and is due respect is not to disrespect and despise women. To say that marriage is a genetic, evolutionary condition whose primary purpose is to ensure the survival of a species, is to assert homosexuality as nothing other than a human statistic of the species, and therefore and quite obviously a participant in human dignity.
But, when any group within a democracy demands the possession of societal resources – in this case the lives of our unborn and the genetic institution of marriage – so as to disorder their purpose within a society, then I believe it should be called out for examination. And so I have.
God Bless – Reese
travelsofanewchristian.com 
“Should she believe it to be a burden and an inconvenience”. Mmm.
What of the rape victim? What of the foetus which will not survive outside the womb, because of disability? What of the foetus which is a threat to the mother’s life?
More generally, do you imagine that any woman has an abortion lightly?
Have you not seen how the woman’s right to choose has been restricted by law all over the US, and how law has made it difficult for abortion clinics to keep open?
May I preface by saying that I intended no judgment as to whether abortion should be legal or not. My post is meant only to point out one, perhaps one of many, deadly consequences that accompany such a legal condition as abortion.
Your questions reference to a time just before legalization when everyone discussed the tragedies of the exceptions – rape victims, fetal mortality due to physical disorder, and a threat to a mother’s life – and then postulated that these exceptions warranted a review of the legality of abortion. That’s all well and good. However, it was not the exceptions that changed the laws, but rather the norms. Current laws reflect the norm, and not solely the exceptions. I stand by my statement that a woman has the legal right in America to abort their child simply because they consider it a burden or an inconvenience to their daily preferences, or that it is a female or a homosexual. The vast majority of women in America – 98 percent – have abortions out of personal preference over that of medical necessity. My concern is with the obvious and deadly discrimination that blooms from such “rights”.
It was historical censorship that prevented the right review of abortion laws until the 1960’s finally offered some proper discussion; though I believe more reactionary than unbiased (having been in the thick of such things in those days). My post, amongst other things, does imply that there is a new cast of censors, whose intent is to prohibit the free and good discussion of an issue that is obviously very troubling to an awful lot of people. This post is only meant to facilitate discussion, not decide any matter.
Let us all keep talking and perhaps some proper balance might be achieved some day.