You Were Convenient!
I wish I could remember where I read a snippet (Twitter?) where the “tweeter” observed the silliness of parents who wonder aloud where these kids today (every generation says this) “Get the ideas and behavior they have?” The author of the post replied, “It came from the parents, not the kids because kids know nothing in and of themselves!”
Those adults who embrace a Pro-Choice (sorry, “Pro Women’s Health Choices”) mindset and stance have, in reality, undermined their own foundation for parenting. Every parent will face that moment when they must reiterate that they love their children and their children are valuable and important to them. Why would this argument be undermined?
It will be difficult, hypocritical and even bordering on lying to try to convince an internet-savvy teen of this when the argument the Pro-Choice movement makes boils down to convenience. Whether or not a baby is brought to term, delivered and allowed to live, is purely based on the whim of the parent.
The culture says the baby is nothing more than a choice. For some, the child may represent an attempt to remove a woman’s freedom, a left-over “collar” representing a patriarchal and backward chauvinism found in those radical church-goers who will not modernize their beliefs. Of course, “modernized beliefs” would always look exactly like what society supports.
Since a child becomes a demonstration of convenience and convenience is the resultant outcome of choice, how can one choice have more value than another? Well, if the choice is to end the life of a baby (by whatever euphemistic term currently in vogue), then yes, that choice has more value. Yet any choice seeking to limit that one has no value.
Here we are: since the early 1970’s the self-esteem of adolescents has experienced an ever-devolving spiral. By what means can we communicate the intrinsic value of a child when our culture screams a child is a choice, is a convenience? As a parent struggles to convince a young girl not to have sex before marriage (oh I’m sorry, “Too early”) or a teenage boy not to try drugs because it devalues them as a person (of course, they know they have no value beyond “mom & dad’s choice”), how will parents surmount the new religion of eroticism and sexual freedom?
In this culture, a child is not a gift (that would mean there exists a Giver), the child is not made in the image of the Creator (we merely evolved) and because no child is imbued with an absolute value, our society has nothing (in and of itself) to counter the eroto-mania, death culture prevalent in our world today.
Rejecting the Truth of God doesn’t mean people have merely rejected church or a biblical morality. Rejecting the Truth of God, which is where we learn of human worth and dignity, means that any reason for the disposal of life must be accepted.
Besides, it’s convenient.
Crime dramas have been a major fare of TV viewing diets since the 1950’s. Whether a show opens “On a dark and rainy night,” or we are ushered into a crime scene as the crime occurs in medias res, the crime drama continues to draw viewers.
Yet here’s an observation I have made: while watching a particular, unnamed drama which would fall into the above mentioned category, I noticed while the characters have no scruples about “blowing away” a bad guy with a gun intent on harming someone, no one—and I mean no one—is allowed to head-shoot the crazed dog trying to take a bite out of one of the characters portraying a cop at the order of the above-mentioned bad guy!
Fido with fangs gets to live; Guido the killer pimp does not.
Now you may be thinking, “Hey dude, it’s not the dogs fault! I mean, dude, it was trained that way!”
You may believe I desire to see Fido (Fee-Fee, Rover, Claude-the Killer-Cat, whatever) get whacked, I don’t. My wife and I are owned by five cats (“Please, call me ‘The Litter Whisperer’”) and we treat them like family—we love our cats! My observation here has to do more with perceived value and balance.
There are laws and caveats always protecting the mistreatment of animals. Animals are viewed as innocent, as creatures in need of our care and stewardship so we should not do anything which could be construed as cruelty to them. We do not desire, as a people, to communicate anything which would denigrate and devalue the life of animals.
I’m good with this. I love my animals and I have given up even the slightest desire to hunt because of my feelings in this matter. I believe it’s fine for others to hunt, but I cannot. My issues are more with my total dislike of death—especially death in which I would be a cause. Yet while I personally do not desire to cause any unwanted death (yessiree, I’m one of those people who honk and brake for squirrels), I would not hesitate to make the choice between a fang-laden Cujo and me; I win and Cujo gets whacked!
So here’s my concern: we go out of our way not to ever show an animal being hurt, but we have no issues with shooting holes in people, with someone shot bleeding out of their mouth and with news people taking pictures of the aftermath of the Boston Bombings and putting them on the news and Internet.
Am I missing something?
Who have we become as a people? Lines will form with angry voices screaming at the mistreatment of animals, there are cries for baby whales, walruses and seals, yet we receive nothing but silence (and occasionally applause) over the depiction of human death and dismemberment. Are we to be extolled for protecting animals all the while we allow the wholesale slaughter of humanity–portrayed with fictional characters or in real life?
Has anyone ever thought this is a reflection of our values rather than an attempt to influence them?
I mean, really?