Molon Labe!

by Boston T. Party

  How do you justify the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition, then?

  I don't. There have been many outrageous and unlawful acts committed in the name of God, which cannot be justified anywhere in the Bible. Lord Ellenborough once wrote, "The greater the truth, the greater the libel." Man has the infinite capacity to mess things up, and man has twisted and perverted the Gospel of Jesus for political purposes.

  The standard for Christian behavior is not a priest or the church. It is Jesus. He is the standard by which to weigh Christianity, and Jesus never forced anybody to accept Him.

  But aren't Christian principles opposed to capitalism? I mean, the Bible talks about money being the root of all evil and rich men not being able to get into heaven.

  Let's quote accurately. I Timothy 6:9 said that the rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. In the next verse, Apostle Paul said that the love of money is the root of all evil, meaning the evils just described. Paul was speaking of the love of wealth luring Christians away from the faith. There is nothing inherently wrong with riches. It is only when riches begin to rule your life that riches become a problem, and this is recognized even in the secular realm.

  Jesus addressed this issue in Matthew 19 when he counseled the rich young ruler who sought eternal life to sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. Then he would have treasure in heaven. One could think of it as divesting from a failing bank and rolling over the balance into a new bank which was sound. Eternally sound. (laughs)

  Was Jesus implicitly demanding this of all wealthy people? No. He merely recognized the one remaining blockage in that young man's life, his inordinate preoccupation with his possessions — his trust in riches over God. This same story was nearly identically told also in Mark 10 and Luke 18. When the wealthy young man went away in great sadness, Jesus remarked to His disciples, "A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Jesus did not say, or even imply, that it was impossible — just that it was very difficult because the wealthy are inherently quite loath to drop their faith in riches for God.

  But if a camel obviously can't go through the eye of a needle, isn't that saying the same thing as impossible?

  No, not if you consider what the "needle's eye" meant in ancient Jewish life. It was slang for the very narrow opening in large gates within the city walls. It was for foot traffic. A camel could get through, but only if it were kneeling down and unloaded. The allegory is perfect. A rich man could, with difficulty, enter the kingdom of heaven, unloaded and kneeling. Meaning, free of his past faith in the world's system, and humble to God.

  However, don't take any of this to mean that it is wrong to seek wealth, invest profitably, or own successful businesses. Jesus made this quite clear in the parable of the talents found at Matthew 25:14. The moral is clear: we are not to allow wealth to usurp higher matters. This is sound policy even if limited to the secular realm. How many rich people place honor and integrity over money? Very few.

  What would be your Christian view on drugs?

  I believe that God created them, and for a reason. For example, it's no accident that so many things so easily ferment into alcohol, and the ability of mankind to "take the edge off" throughout history hasn't been all bad. Jesus had no compunction of turning water into wine, after all.

  Cannabis, peyote, mushrooms, etc. are all natural substances, hence I don't believe that they are inherently iniquitous. Many Christians would disagree, but not necessarily because they want to dictate the lives of others. Rather, they are deeply concerned about the widespread injurious effects of drugs and alcohol on society, and rightly so. However, what they must appreciate is that drug addiction is first a spiritual and psychological problem — an issue of demand — and not an issue of supply to be forbidden by government in a costly and hypocritical social war. Millions of people would never use drugs even if they were legal and free of charge.

  So, as both a Christian and libertarian, I can't see responsible drug use as evil. People have a right to control their own diets. However, there's a vast difference between being drunk and being a drunkard. Whatever we do, we become — eventually. That's human nature. So, beware that nothing in your life — drugs, food, sex, music, gambling, TV, etc. — goes from recreation to harmful addiction.

  Isn't there a schism between Christians and libertarians on the matter of abortion?

  Generally, yes. It's a profound subject. Are you sure you want to explore it in detail?

  Why not? That's what provocative interviews are for.

  All right, but let's keep it simple.

  Fine. How?

  Let's talk about the easiest and largest issue: women participating in consensual sex who have at their informed disposal many ways not to become pregnant, including abstinence. This is is the real issue of abortion.

  OK, agreed.

  Consenting adults know exactly where babies come from, and abortion is resorted to well over 80% of the time as nothing more than postcoital birth control. Often, abortion is the only form of birth control. In over half of the cases, not even condoms or spermicides had been used, much less the Pill. Abortion is being used — not as the last resort, but the only resort —and that is disgraceful.

  Worse still is that at least 43% of abortions are repeat abortions. Even if abortion was truly a last resort, how many times can a woman morally repeat it? Didn't she learn anything from her first abortion?

  Are you sure about the figures?

  Yes, quite sure. In a 1987 survey by researchers with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is overtly pro-choice, the #1 reason why 76% of mothers choose to terminate their unborn child is their concern "about how having a baby could change her life." In fact, the first eight reasons were all about the inconvenience involved.

  If a woman chooses to have sex, she risks becoming pregnant. With such a pregnancy comes responsibility. How could it not? By voluntarily engaging in sexual behavior, she has voluntarily accepted the risk of co-creating with a man a separate human life. If the consequences of that pregnancy are too onerous, then she should have considered that before sex, not after. There is no "Rewind" button in life. That's why actions always have consequences.

  Let's say that a man lying in a vegetative coma had at least a 95% chance of fully recovering and living a normal life, and that the recovery would begin in several minutes at the soonest and eight months at the latest. Would it then be moral or legal to remove him from life-support before that time? Of course not. Yet precisely the same thing is being done 1½ million times a year to unborn babies, generally out of convenience. Three out ten conceptions end in the destruction of the fetus. It's a gargantuan phenomenon.

  The argument about women having the right to control their own bodies and destinies falls flat if it's really about avoiding the consequences of their own bad choices. Libertarian ethics correctly prize personal responsibility as the corollary to personal liberty, except, ironically, in this one particular matter. The existence of this exception really should give libertarians pause.

  Also, the double standard against fathers is outrageous.

  What double standard?

  That men are — as they should be — held responsible for fathering a child, yet they don't have the option of preventing or demanding an abortion. A woman, however, can kill a man's baby as his sperm falls into the "abandoned property" category, or she can force him to support it. Men have no choice either way. Men are financial partners, but not moral partners? How is this not a double standard? If men enjoyed a similar situation, the feminist uproar would be deafening.

  Choose one. If women indeed own their bodies and can abort their baby without the father's consent, then they should accept the responsibility of raising their children on their own. That is the flip side of ownership.

  Or, if their developing baby is
a unique human life which cannot be aborted by the mother for her sheer convenience, then the father is required to support it. But choose one.

  You cited the shopworn figure of 1.5 million annual abortions. Doesn't that avoid the problem of 1.5 million unwanted babies? Who would raise all those children forced into existence by your moralism? Who would pay for them? The state? The prolifers?

  Gee, how about their parents, Tom! Cannot society demand that its members demonstrate some personal responsibility for their actions? "Forced into existence by my moralism?" Millions of men and women regularly engage in — for the sake of sheer recreation — risky behavior fraught with a myriad of serious consequences, but pro-lifers are a bunch of up-tight prudes who would dare to legislate morality?

  By the way, one of the main pro-choice arguments in the 1970s was that legalized abortion on demand would reduce the number of welfare babies. Just the opposite has happened, because what you subsidize you encourage, and what you tax you discourage. Those same pro-choice liberals have politically guaranteed a continuing welfare class by rewarding unwed mothers through AFDC and other programs. Every fatherless baby increases the government benefits of the welfare mother, so why should she abort them?

  Look, your question is based on an inversion of what's really going on here. 1.5 million humans are forced into existence each year because of irresponsibility. They are killed before they can even become children.

  So, in your view, a fetus is a baby?

  Expecting mothers seem to think so, don't they? When have you ever heard a pregnant woman say, "Ooh, I just felt my fetus move"?

  Let's put it another way: an obviously pregnant woman is attacked on the street and miscarries. Does everyone say, "What is she so upset about? It was just a fetus!" Of course not —everyone understands that an unborn baby has been lost. "Fetus" was a medical term. Now it's a political one, as the abortionists cannot bring themselves to say the B-word — "baby."

  It's ironic to hear a libertarian espouse a Catholic view on abortion.

  Well, can one truly have a "view" on abortion? Isn't the only real pertinent question: When does human life begin? Meaning, when does a developing human being have the right of moral and legal protection? Remember, human life is pleomorphic. All of us are constantly developing and changing, so the matter isn't as cut and dried as one may think. So, considering that, when does human life begin? At the first cellular mitosis? After its first fetal heart beat? When brain waves are detected? After 6 months? After being born when it gets a name change from fetus to baby? After it is weaned? When it shows self-knowledge? When it can walk? When it can speak? When it becomes materially self-sufficient? When?

  Pick one, if you can. But in doing so you're allowing the mother to exterminate its life before that point. Many so-called "pro-choice" advocates claim that any unborn baby is fair game. I really cannot see how a baby just minutes from being born is somehow inferior to a baby which had only just travelled down the birth canal. The argument is not logical because a born baby is no more "viable" in a self-sufficient sense than an unborn baby. The whole "post-birth viability" argument is a sham.

  It allows for partial birth abortion — so-called D&E — a grotesque legal technicality often used to avoid a charge of infanticide. That's where a late-term baby — sometimes just moments from taking its first breath of air — is delivered feet first until only the head remains in its mother. Then —without any anesthesia — its brains are sucked out with a vacuum hose through a hole carved in the back of its head. The soft little skull collapses and the now-dead baby is then removed. How any mother can actually watch this happen I cannot fathom. A live, squirming baby killed with its head still inside the mother? It's something straight out of Dachau. Perhaps that's why many mothers choose general, versus local, anesthesia during the procedure — because they cannot watch it. Well, if it's too horrific to watch, then perhaps it's because it's too horrific to do.

  The most shocking thing about partial birth abortions is that, according to a leading practitioner, 80% of them are purely elective and not needed to save the mothers' life or health. Because of the late stage of pregnancy, she has already accepted the risk of carrying to term or near-term and going through delivery, so the argument of health risks is inherently disingenuous. In fact, to perform a partial-birth abortion, the birthing is already in full swing and must be stopped to commit the abortion. This is where Roe v. Wade has brought us. A "casual brutality born of nihilism" as Robert Bork described in Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

  Even the original plaintiff in that case has changed her mind. Elizabeth Campbell is now pro-life.

  Aren't you overstating the alleged danger of abortion?

  I doubt it. In a superb essay1 Jeff Snyder observed that abortion on demand is emblematic of our culture's facility in not seeing persons. American Indians were not persons, nor Japanese-Americans during WWII, nor Iraqis, nor unborn children. The goal of the totalitarian State is to take, for any reason, simply because the State desires it. The purpose of abortion rights is to take the life of a mother's unborn baby, for any reason, simply because she desires it. All the abortion case law about reasons for "health" is hollow legal formalism given that any normal pregnancy involves some risk to the mother's health. Being able to terminate the life of one's child is the ultimate in parental power, and the lowest form of irresponsibility.

  Snyder made the brilliant point that abortion is the perfect analogue of the ideal relation sought between the state and its subjects (who have happily assented to a role of infantile dependency), and thus abortion rights have logically become the litmus test for government leadership.

  That is utterly harrowing to contemplate. Pro-choice Libertarians really need to mull that over.

  Still, you must admit the entrenched political support for abortion.

  Yes, and to me that entrenched —no, rabid — support is very curious. Senate confirmation hearings cannot hold their bladder for more than nine seconds before they begin prying from the nominee his position on Roe v. Wade. Every other consideration is secondary. A Democratic presidential candidate will get the longest and most earnest applause on any issue by promising to protect abortion on demand. I noticed this back in 2000 watching Al Gore's speeches.

  Why is that? Abortion rights have nothing to do with the economy, or foreign policy, or the environment, or education, or national defense. Why is this puny issue so utterly determinative of political office? Because a politician who has no qualms about allowing mothers to murder their unborn babies simply for convenience's sake will not be queasy about orchestrating, for State purposes, the deaths of other "non-persons," foreign or domestic. Support abortion on demand, especially partial-birth abortions, and no killing is unconscionable or too grisly. Political committal to Roe v. Wade is sort of like the secret handshake for the — lub of Genocide.

  My point is this: we are being conditioned to accept increasingly barbaric practices. It's the conditioning part of all this that deeply concerns me. Nazi Germany went through the same process, whereby extermination of the Jews from 1943-on was made possible by accepting their sterilization in 1933. Very few Germans in 1933 would have agreed with outright genocide. Similarly, Gloria Steinem herself may have been shocked in 1973 with partial birth abortions. Germany, the land of Bach and Schiller, reached genocide in just 10 years down the Nazi path. Forty years of Roe v. Wade has gotten us flirting with genocide ourselves.

  Genocide? That's a very strong claim.

  There was a "philosopher" from Princeton by the name of Peter Singer. He and his fellow bioethnicists declared that a "person" in the legal sense is a human being capable of "sustained consciousness." Meaning, babies, coma victims, and the senile are not "persons" and have no rights. They can be killed. Singer said that you should have up to one year to kill your baby. He originally quoted 28 days, but then upped it to a year. As monstrous as this is, such an opinion is a predictable extrapolation from the non-person argument of unborn babies. The phi
losophical trail of abortion leads to infanticide — just as prolifers warned in the 1970s.

  Taking Singer even further, why limit personhood to merely "sustained consciousness"? Why not define personhood as "sustained self-support"? That way we could kill off any children and poverty-prone adults we wished. This is the next logical step from Singer, and it's already being seriously discussed in academic journals.

  Euthanasia will be next. Hillary Clinton's Health Reform Task Force made the chilling observation back in 1993 that most of a person's health care costs are incurred in the last six months of life. You can almost hear the future licking of chops over the power to decide which of the elderly are "too costly to maintain" and whose life is "not worth living." Over half of Americans are over sixty. They might beware a Logan's Run society on the horizon.

  Through legal positivism, people can actually cease to be persons. Attempting to redefine what it means to be a human being is inherently very dangerous. Personhood arguments based on sentience or self-support will lead to unexpected and shocking conclusions.

  Are there any historical examples of that?

  You bet. Nazi Germany's sterilization program came from the United States, by the Germans' own admission. Indiana had been sterilizing "mental defectives" since 1907. By 1934, seventeen states including California had coercive sterilization laws. The eugenics movement was becoming American public policy. The Supreme Court upheld forced sterilizations with Oliver Wendell Holmes decreeing that "three generations of imbeciles is enough." A major proponent of all this from 1932-on was Margaret Sanger, an ardent eugenicist who later founded Planned Parenthood. They sort of skipped over this in her website bio. Read her Birth Control Review for all sorts of interesting ideas and plans — stuff that sounds like transcripts from the Nazi Wannsee Conference of 1942 where they concocted the Final Solution.

  Look, the reason why I am morally opposed to abortion as a form of purely elective birth control is that any postconception demarcation of personhood is artificial. A 3-month old fetus, 6-month old fetus, partial-birth, before the umbilical cord is cut, or a 12 month baby — it's all artificial, not to mention self-serving. It basically says, "We can kill you until you grow old enough to physically defend yourself." And, as any good libertarian will tell you, any law based on an artificial demarcation is inherently flawed, such as the drinking age or the voting age or the age of majority.