My Rant:

You do not get to judge the value of life. There is little which gets under my skin as much as this infectious hatred, this insidious scoffing, this malignant insistence that we devalue life. The more mild form of this sickness is couched in vegetarianism. I do not intend to make a moral case for eating meat. Rather, I’d say no life can have value if, as some vegetarian arguments assume, all life is of equal value. What this assumption of equality eventually leads to is a passive destruction of life, where, unable to weigh the human life against the animal life, we sacrifice the higher, that is the human, for the lower.

Where else have I seen this evil? I suppose the most terrible form of it is our culture’s acceptance of abortion. Do we love death so much that we sacrifice our children to its insatiable destruction? Every pro-abortion argument I hear drips with this foul claim that we can become god, that we might judge what is right and wrong in our own eyes. We cannot judge life; we did not create it.



    1. Thank you for reading. I’m interested: I know you and I come from different perspectives, and I see life’s value in that God called it good. How does a mystic view the value of life?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well tend to favour quality over quantity. Therefore I think life should be enjoyed and cherished, however death is what makes life precious. So that way it is not wasted “ah there’ll be next time”. There is a give and take. A reciprocity in relationships and interactions. Everyone is trying their best with what they have and it’s no ones business to try to infringe upon someone else’s happiness. Life is more enjoyable when it is shared.

        Liked by 2 people

  1. Early term fertilized eggs have no consciousness or ability to feel. Early term abortion is literally like flushing away an apple seed.

    Forced birth on girls and women against their will, will never again be legal in the US or other Western nations, because it is barbaric and twisted and senseless.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Barbaric: Defending the value of life.

      Civilized: Killing children.

      Out of the two, I’m joining Conan.

      So, if a life has no consciousness or ability to feel, I can kill it? So logically, you’d be okay if I raped and killed a woman as long as I drugged her first, making sure she felt and knew nothing of it? I should hope not.

      Did you create that life, and can you decide its value, its weight?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The issue is not “life”. Technically, broccoli is alive. Dandelions are alive. Trees are alive. Bushes are alive. Seaweed is alive.

        The ethical issue with killing something is not whether it’s alive, it’s whether it’s sentient. Whether or not it can suffer.

        An egg that was fertilized a week ago is not sentient. It is not unethical to abort an egg that was fertilized a few days or even a few weeks ago because the science we have tells us that fetuses are not capable of the lower levels of consciousness or feeling until at least twenty four weeks of gestation.

        It is an emotional fallacy to call fertilized eggs “children” in an attempt to garner ethical credibility. Flushing out a two week fertilized egg is no more unethical than throwing out a seed. It’s irrelevant, no one suffers or experiences any kind of anything.

        It is religious fanaticism to say “human life is special and should condemn women and girls to forced birth against their will.”

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Amanda: “The ethical issue with killing something is not whether it’s alive, it’s whether it’s sentient. Whether or not it can suffer.”

          Well, my argument still stands. If someone lost her sentience—if she were unable to know or feel pain—but like the unborn child, would gain/regain sentience over time, would it be okay to kill her in the interim?

          Why not?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Sentience is not lost once developed, that is a very kindergarten way of thinking about fetal science.
            Sentience is not “lost” just because someone is unconscious; And to answer your question, euthanasia should remain a right to those who are caregivers of those in long-term comas.

            But comparing unjustified random acts of killing adults/children with preventing gestation of an egg is extremely fallacious.

            The “life” obsession is driven by religious fanaticism as I said, and holds no basis in the actual debate because like I said, plants are alive.

            No woman or girl who has a three day old fertilized egg should be condemned to pregnancy and birth against her will. Those days are looong gone.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Well, if that truly is your position, I’m not sure there can be any dialogue between us. I see life as precious, and you seem to think all life is of the same worth as a head of broccoli. This seemed to be the original idea of my post: hatred of life is rampant, running the gamut from the pitiable confusion found in some vegetarian positions to the bloodthirsty hatred of human life.

              You seem to contain yourself to early term abortion on the grounds that the child cannot know—that is, is not sentient—or feel anything. And yet we know, in normal conditions, that the child will develop sentience and all other human qualities.

              Why is it okay, knowing that this life has started, to stop it?

              Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to Amanda Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.