The Rights of the Un-conceived as a Forgotten Mission Field


As the American Religious Civil War (ARCW) cooks along, the body count increases. Major damage has been done by the forces of un-reason.

The Creation Museum, in Kentucky, continues to draw great throngs who gape at fantasy and marvel at myth made fact. Laws are being passed that require public schools to teach religious doctrines as science.

With the resources of the planet being strained to extinction, with overpopulation inexorably working at choking out civilization, and with the very planet itself warming in consequence of madness in the use of what remains, the Catholic Church (hereinafter CC), and lesser religions, persists in getting laws passed making their mythology, that every product of human conception must be retained and nurtured, the reality of all. The Law, by dog.

Some make this madness a centerpiece of their political propaganda.

And it is working.

Hospitals, dedicated to providing life sustaining care are forced by canon law made civil law to deny contraceptive information and useful products to women who want to have sex without the possibility of conception. Such an idea is anathema to the CC. Sex is per se wicked and sinful, the only excuse for which being the chance that a pregnancy will result as the fruits of the sin of the flesh. Then sex is okay.

Such a threshold excludes, by its very nature, same sex sex, condomed sex, oral sex, coitus incompletus, masturbation (spilling one’s seed upon the ground—Bible by God), and anything else that might somehow give one sexual release, and (dog forbid) pleasure, without having associated with the unclean act the possibility of pregnancy. Pleasure is never enough excuse. Reason, and sound ethical judgment, must yield to the demands of celibate men who rape children.

All fertilized human female eggs are “persons” within the meaning of the laws proposed by those who would have their supernatural belief system made our law.

This type of irrational thought might best be met with blasphemy.

Please see this most innovative web site: http://personhoodfunerals.com/, Don’t miss the “shop,” “FAQs,” and “how to” sections for vitally important information.

This goes nicely with your author’s http://freethoughtblogs.com/kagin/2012/04/29/trinity-square-perpetual-embryo-care/

The rapidly developing ethical and legal environment to sustain this kind of nonsense is well under way. Voters and legislators are threatened with divine repercussions by the Church if they do not vote as instructed by the Church.

There are doubtless legal questions that will be occasioned by the newly emerging religion-compelled reality.

Let us say court cases arise in the future, as they will, that may have at their center the true age of a person. Perhaps the age of drinking, driving, consent, enlistment, marriage, contract signing, joining the Girl Scouts, starting school, gun buying, etc. will be impacted in ways not yet anticipated. “Judge, he/she is not 10/15/17/20, or whatever, years old. The nine months, more or less, when the person was in the womb must be calculated and added to the incorrect birth age.” And so it must. After all, if a person begins at conception, by law, must not the law figure the age of the person from the moment of conception, not from the moment of birth? It is truly a pregnant question.

Yet, a more profound ontology emerges. Why must our understanding of “personhood” be constrained by the arbitrary selection of conception as the beginning of that status?

Must we not consider the rights of the unconceived?

Are humans denying life to other potential humans by just saying “no?” Of course they are. And it is a shame and a blot upon the very concept of personhood. A potential person must be considered a kinetic person. The theology and logic of this is inescapable.

A girl or woman, aged at least 17 years plus nine months, more or less, who does not put out without protection in the back seat of a Chevy, or wherever, is actively, and deliberately, denying life to the unconceived. The criminal laws must deal with this ungodly refusal.

Here is your author’s early take on this flowering phenomenon:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/kagin/2012/01/28/the-rights-of-the-unconceived/

This is truly a much neglected mission field. Perhaps believers should go out, two by two, to encourage the consummation of lust wherever and whenever it may arise.

Then can the faithful proclaim, “God says it. I believe it. And that’s that, said the grammarian.”

Edwin
© 2012 by Edwin Kagin.

Comments

  1. crowepps says

    Nothing makes your point more clearly than the resistence to giving rape victims Plan B to prevent conception. Apparently resisting conception is now ‘equivalent to abortion’. Expect it won’t be long before women who fight rapists off and escape from them will be shamed and blamed for ‘rejecting motherhood’.

  2. kraut says

    Could someone not file a lawsuit for damages against denial of conception?
    The state could charge any woman that produces less than: 40(age of menopause, roughly) – 16 -9months Age of legal sexuality minus embryo stage): 9 month = potential children.

    Any woman having produced less than the theoretical maximum at age 40 should be charged with denial of conception and multiple abortion of unfertilized eggs.

    Hammer them hard, god wants souls.

  3. subbie says

    Far be it from me to be a grammar Nazi, but I couldn’t pass this up.

    Sex is pro se wicked and sinful, the only excuse for which being the chance that a pregnancy will result as the fruits of the sin of the flesh.

    Emphasis added.

    I’m pretty sure you meant “per se” rather than “pro se.” “Pro se” is latin, translated as “for himself.” That’s not to say, of course, that the Godstapo is any more approving of sex for one’s own self, but the typo amused me.

    Carry on.

  4. Randomfactor says

    After all, if a person begins at conception, by law, must not the law figure the age of the person from the moment of conception, not from the moment of birth?

    Plus two weeks in Arizona.

  5. Kurtis Rader says

    A girl or woman, aged at least 17 years plus nine months, more or less, who does not put out… is actively, and deliberately, denying life to the unconceived. The criminal laws must deal with this ungodly refusal.

    Showing yet again how fiction can become fact.

Leave a Reply