I rise to a question of the deepest gravity.
The holy armies in defense of life are demonstrably correct in their assertion of the sanctity of conception. No reasonable person disputes the full humanity that it is realized at conception, we only lack the technical means to permit enwombed citizens to express their civic privileges, a hurdle I fully expect will, one day, be overcome. This undeniable fact lies at the very heart of our Judeo-Christian heritage, and is also a factor in several of the lesser traditions. The full humanity of conception is a given, and I do not intend to pretend otherwise.
But is it enough? Have we stopped short of full compliance with the clear will of the Almighty?
Consider the Biblical sources. We are given to understand that a man lying with another man as he might with a woman is an abomination. Lying with beasts in the field is an abomination. However, coveting thy neighbors maidservant’s ass is a sin, but not an abomination! Could it be more clear?
What separates a mere sin, a misdemeanor, if you will, from an abomination is this: the potential of conception! Conception in the first two instances of depravity is impossible, but entirely reasonable in the example of lust that overlooks the inherent property rights of one’s neighbor. (Indeed, one might make the argument that it is the abrogation of property rights that is the root cause of the sinfulness, but such subtle theology is beyond the scope of your correspondent….)
From this it necessarily follows that the potential of conception has an equal standing with the actual* fact* of conception, which we have already established is sacred. I give the reader a moment’s pause to consider the implications.
All over our sinful and debased land, adolescent males are squandering uncountable billions of potential conceptions! The numbers stagger the imagination! And be mindful of the story of Onan, who was struck dead for this abominable practice. Struck dead, mind you! Though the Old Testament abounds in wholesale slaughters of Midianites, Gomorrahistas, etc., seldom does it refer to a specific act such as this. We can only conclude that the issue is of such gravity as to demand a direct and targeted smiting. (We can only breathe with relief that Onan’s story is recounted in Leviticus, and was beyond the reach of liberal activist Judges….) Its in the Bible. You could look it up.
Overturning RvW is a worthy step, but it falls far, far short of the demands placed upon us. We must take immediate steps to ensure that such abominations are not tolerated by our legal system. How such jurisprudence might be enacted is beyond the scope of this correspondent, but I have little doubt that talented legal minds, such as our own wildly creative Attorney General, can hammer out the niggling and petty details with all due haste.
Evidentiary matters will, no doubt, prove difficult, but here is another clear example of a situation wherein coercive interrogation can prove useful (see Torquemada, Savanarola, et. al.). Of course, such prosecutions will prove a burden upon our courts, but perhaps we can set aside such trivial concerns as campaign finance infractions, and innocent accidents involving firearms (especially when such accidents involve businessmen and public servants, men of reliable moral fiber and probity)?
And, yes, this is not the only area of concern. Some of our more sophisticated Cecilians are aware of……certain practices…. that involve inappropriate orifices. Out of deference to the fair gender and their delicate sensibilities, we will refrain from any graphic descriptions, we should hate to think that Republican women might be reading, swoon and pitch forward, face down onto their keyboards in a shocked faint, pristine innocence forever tainted. We cannot contemplate such, and will not. Suffice to say that if the Lord of Hosts had wanted such practices to be acceptable, He would have made semen taste like chocolate. I have it on very good authority that this is not the case. But let us draw a discreet veil, even as we shudder in horror.
And, of course, this necessarily implies that women who have passed what might be reasonably considered to be “child-bearing age” would be required to submit themselves to connubial practices even when conception is unlikely. I can only trust in the unyielding moral character of the American woman, that she behave as stern duty demands. But I digress….
I have demonstrated to the Gentle Reader the necessity, nay, the clear moral imperative, to carry forward. In our day and age, there is no practical reason why our government cannot install cameras to supervise our nation’s bedrooms (I propose the symbolic title “Moral Guardians”) and entrust their monitoring to persons of sufficient moral fiber and character! Baptists, for the most part, I would imagine. Unitarians, agnostics, and their ilk need not apply.
A nation that need not fear God need fear nothing!
)