Sometimes an event will literally rock the earth beneath me. One such incident came to my attention recently by way of Jill Stanek—the pro-life movement’s number one commentator. When I saw her headline, “Stephen Colbert creates partial-birth abortion drinking game,” I have to admit I was incredulous. That feeling disappeared in less than a millisecond once I viewed the offensive segment. Watching the video angered me, then saddened me, and then inspired me to work harder than ever to convince my fellow citizens that only when the inalienable human rights of every person are respected from creation to death will people be able to live without threat of violence.
Seriously, this is how bad it has become. When a man can joke about an act in which scissors are driven through the skull of a living, nearly born infant—and entertain his audience by doing so—something is fundamentally wrong. A crisis of conscience has occurred and it is draining the lifeblood out of society.
As if that were not enough to turn my stomach, the New York Times published something equally as nauseating. The Ariel Kaminer column entitled, “A Dog’s Right to Life?” addressed a question a veterinarian had asked regarding the wishes of an elderly woman who asked that her dog be euthanized upon her own death. Apparently the woman was fearful that her dog would not be taken care of after she died. Kaminer, for those who do not know, is an “ethicist.” She wrote,
I took the question to Peter Singer, the scholar of philosophy and ethics who has done more than anyone else to spread the call for animal liberation. He agreed that killing a dog is no worse than killing a cow or a sheep or a pig. And that the dog’s own expectations (or lack thereof) do matter. “The wrongness of killing a dog is nothing like the wrongness of killing a normal non-infant human being,” he said, “who can envisage their future and have specific desires for their future.” . . . If the dog could never again be happy, he allowed, there might be a case for merciful death. “But if the dog can go on enjoying life,” he said, “why not let it enjoy it?”
Singer’s words, “normal non-infant” say it all. By inferring that the killing of infants, disabled or otherwise, is no worse than euthanizing a dog, Singer accomplishes his goal—dehumanizng persons. Kaminer, evidently in agreement with such twisted advice, wound up telling the veterinarian that if she wanted to give the elderly woman peace of mind she could “guarantee that Pomeranian a loving adoption rather than an untimely demise.”
The third example of America’s crisis of conscience this week comes from the National Women’s Liberation movement. It seems its representatives hosted an event in Manhattan calling attention to the goal of expanding access to Plan B, the morning after pill, by pressuring pro-abortion Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. It’s interesting that the feminist organization’s logo is a clenched fist symbolizing women’s anger. The women list their “wants” on the website. Among them is this tidbit: “We want free and full access to all forms of birth control, including contraception and abortion.”
In other words, the feminists recognize abortion as just another form of birth control, something we have suggested is a foundational dogma upon which the entire culture of death is based. This is why it is clear that surgical abortion, medical abortion, and chemical abortion must all be opposed or none will end.
The three tragic reports this week: Colbert’s drinking game, Singer’s disdain for babies, and the feminist penchant for unbridled killing of the preborn, reflect the same disturbing mindset—intrinsic human rights are irrelevant.
It cannot be claimed that these are isolated incidents. Rather, they are reflections of society’s rudderless principles—an indictment of a possible future devoid of human kindness.
This is no laughing matter.