I have to give Dr Wyman credit for his opening here, his view of both sides of the abortion debate was simplistic, balanced, but propaganda. I would very much like to view the previous content in the course about abortion that he edited out. Here is the propaganda:
Dr Wyman: It encapsulates diametrically opposed views of our roles in everyday life. People perceive it as an everyday kind of issue. And what are the roles that I'm talking about? Sex roles, work roles, husband and wife roles, motherhood and fatherhood roles; all of those - - how you perceive yourself in those roles will very much determine how you feel about the abortion debate. For instance, both sides in the debate agree that the issue is about murder. A pro-lifer sees images of a three month old fetus, which even though only about the size of your finger they see - - they're having visual of blown up photographs and I'm sure you've all seen those things and it already looks quite baby like, and thinks of it of being dismembered and murdered. A pro-choicer also sees it about murder, but she, in her mind, sees a young woman, maybe herself, in a back alley abortion, being butchered and possibly murdered. And almost everyone of the older generation of pro-choice women has either themselves had an abortion, or has had a friend who has had an abortion, and they perceived it as lifesaving, or if it was a back alley unsuccessful one, as a life depriving situation. Both sides agree that the issue is about babies and motherhood. A pro-life mother thinks that babies are so precious that whenever they come they will be loved and wanted. There is no such thing as an unloved or unwanted baby. A pro-choice mother thinks that babies are so precious that they should only be had when the woman really wants the baby and is in a situation in life where they have the resources to take care of the baby. Both sides agree that the issue is about sex. A pro-life woman things that sex is so special that it should be guarded by strong religious and social controls so that it always has an almost sacred character. A pro-choice woman things sex is so special that it should be freed from worry about pregnancy and disease so that it can be enjoyed as a unique sharing of intimacy. Both sides agree that the issue is about the status of women. Pro-life women think that women are so important that their special life role of motherhood must be protected. Pro-choice women think that women are so important that they should have every bit as much control over their life roles as men have. Just viewed in that way, one of the interesting things about this abortion debate is that the two sides on - - if you really get down to what the fundamental values of the two sides are, they're not different. They apply them differently. They're thinking of different instances, of different real situations in which to apply these rather same kinds of fundamental human values.
I could follow Wyman until the sentence, that the fundamental values of the two sides are not different. That is a sophistry applied to vastly different sets of values. All one has to do is look at the choices. The mother has the "option" of aborting or not aborting. What choice does the fetus have? The pro-lifer understands that crossing the threshold of purposely destroying human life, is based upon that "life" being a mere beast, a biological mass without meaning. That is where the debate is joined, no other aspect of it has meaning. Notice that Dr Wyman couched his comparison saying, "how you perceive yourself in those roles will very much determine how you feel about the abortion debate." This idea of how one "feels" about an issue is a tactic of the deconstruction of reason, where 'feelings' are values and feelings equal values and values then are nebulous, ephemeral, on the whim of emotion and sentiment, but most importantly ALL values are EQUAL. Again it is a tool to make the ground of each side seem equal.
It is only upon such ephemeral ground where the potential harm to the woman from an illegal abortion can be equated with the murder of the unborn. Truth be told there is nothing equal about it. A woman seeking an illegal abortion "chooses" to place herself in danger, in the same way that a woman enduring a dangerous pregnancy, chooses to endanger her own life to have the child. Both have chosen to endanger their lives, but the reason and purpose is NOT equal. One is hoping to allow the individual D.N.A. that is that unique person inside her womb to grow and to experience breath, and the other wants to rid her womb of a meaningless biological glob. So yes, Dr Wyman is quite right that how a woman (or man) perceives herself will govern what she thinks about abortion. But Wyman misses the categories. The woman who sees herself as a human being, with all the attributes and qualities tradition teaches, with human perceptions knows the human value of the fetus and protects it. The woman who sees herself as a post-human beast only, with the rights of the beast to enjoy her sensual pleasures, since the five senses are all there is for the beast, that "potential" beast in her womb is meaningless, an inconvenience, a stumbling block to her "life style." Nothing about that is equal.
Now look at what has to be called The Carnage.
Worldwide, there are 40 to 50 million abortions every year as a worldwide statistic. That's staggering! Six years of the world's aborted fetuses would create a country the size of America, were those babies born. This figure was consistent from 1983 to 2003. That is somewhere between 800 million and one billion abortions in two decades - that is staggering!
And notice how matter-of-fact and unemotionally Dr Wyman states these staggering figures. And he questions? "Has anyone changed their minds about abortion?" As you know if you have watched the lectures, there was nothing in the content of the lecture that would challenge a pro-lifer to become pro-abortion, or a pro-abortionist to gain greater appreciation for life. So again we have to assume that the edited content contained such material. He also made mention in one lecture of a second guest lecturer or a lecture by a graduate student, he didn't define it, just said in "x" person's presentation (I don't recall the name"). Now if you doubt that even a boring lecture on demographics in the Darwinian/Evolutionist post-human world has become an "evangelical event" for the new religion of Scientism, let us set this dry, unemotional presentation of 40 to 50 million abortions a year, against Dr Wyman's first hour where he is beating the drum of abuse of women, and sucking-in like a talented con man the female students, and especially those who are feminist, and in "women's studies." Deftly, he is also disarming those who hold pro-life views making them think he is sympathetic to their view. Also remember what I've say consistently about the priests of Scientism, "if nothing else, they are consistently inconsistent."
From lecture one:
"During the long course of human history females are treated very badly. There is a huge amount of battering. Battering is the prime human version of violence. And females are so discriminated against that statistics indicate that there is something now, right now, something like a hundred million missing females. That these females are either aborted, ah . . before they are born, killed by infanticide, pretty much as soon as they are born, or neglected so that they don't get the food, or they don't get the medical care, that their brothers get. There is a dearth of something like a hundred million women in the world today, and uh . . so . . these are ah . . extreme incidences . . but it is an extremely common . . ah . . .thing. One of the purposes of this course is to get you to understand what is causing all of this."
He stated this with the utmost seriousness, in what could only be called a "solemn voice" literally like a preacher giving an altar call. He continued in the same solemn voice:
"From a biological point of view this abuse of females is extremely weird. Ah . . males as you know can only reproduce by a female. And so . . an evolutionist . . ah . . the name of the game is reproducing. So almost all species, what kind of a female do the males want? They want the healthiest, the most well protected, the most well fed female, and you will see some examples of the extremes males will go to ah, ah . . provide this, so that that female can produce off springs for that male and carry on the evolution game." "In the evolution game, it just doesn't make sense that human males should keep their females hungry, sick, and abused." "So this is all a biological disaster the way human males treat human females and ah . . . we don't know why . . . ah we do . . we have some idea why humans do that . . . in the first part of the course we'll talk . . . something about that. "
Let me repeat the line, "That these females are either aborted, ah . . before they are born, killed by infanticide, pretty much as soon as they are born, or neglected so that they don't get the food, or they don't get the medical care, that their brothers get . . . In the evolution game, it just doesn't make sense that human males should keep their females hungry, sick, and abused." "So this is all a biological disaster the way human males treat human females . . ."
"Something like one hundred million missing females . . . these females are either aborted . . . etc." Then in this lecture he rattle off statistics of world wide abortion suggesting the low number is 40 million abortions a year, and suggests a few paragraphs later that "condoms, backed up by abortion is the safest means of . . . " What? "birth control." He bemoans "something like 100 million missing females" lost to us today, "right now" who are "lost" due to abortion, infanticide, abandonment and neglect. That period he mentioned where they have "very good data" showed that total abortions in the world were 40 to 50 million each year from 1983 to 2003, two decades. That is a total of 800 million to one billion abortions in that twenty year period. We know that the abortions are weighted heavily toward females so that mean in all likelihood around 500 million females aborted in that twenty year period alone. And this is seen as a "good thing" merely part of the "fertility transition." Reconcile that consistent inconsistency if you can.
If we take the idea that the forcible taking of a human life, when that human life has not given you cause, hasn't threatened you and is peaceable, is murder, making the distinction that not all killing is murder, just like not all abortions would be murder, IF the mother's life were truly threatened by the pregnancy - but what is murder, is a crime against an innocent, then murder is murder whether it is via abuse or so-called family planning.
So then, why was the murder of 100 million females over a 73 year period morned in lecture one, and five time that many, 500 million murdered females over a mere 20 year period seen as a "good thing," as part of the "fertility transition" from "religions times" to "scientistic times"? Why, because the 100 million murders do not fit the scientistic paradigm, and the 500 million (not to mention the additional 300 million to 400 million murders of males - recorded from very good data) . . . so the 800 million to one billion murders do fit the scientistic paradigm and are called, the "backup plan for the safest means of birth control." Then the mortality rate of women who choose to give birth is seen as higher than any other category, and child birth is called, "very dangerous for the woman, which it is, making it in some cases in reality and literally the most selfless act, the most heroic act some women will choose in their life time. This is seen as "questionable." In subtle and droning boredom and chart after chart of statistic, and tale after tale of mythology ultimately the purpose of the course is the religion of "scientism" and its Eugenic goals. Nothing could explain this inconsistency except the dictates of pure propaganda.
If you doubt the use of Propaganda at Yale, listen to this bit of propaganda used on the women of Ukraine:
"In the Ukraine, when the Soviet Union fell apart, the family planning programs that they had also fell apart and so the whole area was left without effective family planning. And the international Planned Parenthood Federation, their nearest office was in Bangkok and so they couldn't help very much. What they did is they said, we'll take just the city of Moscow because it's most cost effective to work in a city of a lot of people, we don't have geographic access, but we'll try to provide some contraception in Moscow. That left all the other Soviet Block countries with nothing. The Planned Parenthood Federation of Connecticut here (of which Dr Wyman was a board member for years) I was associated with them at the time, got in contact with the Ukraine - - the whole Ukraine was like left bereft of contraception. Got in touch with the main - the head and the university in Kiev, the head of the OB/GYN Department, a very nice woman, and started to help her provide - - by contraceptives here and ship them abroad. Actually we buy them internationally, very cheap, a cycle of pills is 80 cents in the world market. A condom is like a penny and a half, diaphragm is $1.25. So, if you buy them in the United States they're expensive. You buy them in India or wherever they're made, they are a lot cheaper, so we could really help Ukraine a lot. What they wanted first was - - because you can't use any of these things if there's pelvic infections so they wanted Monistat and other treatments for vaginal infections as a first line and then they could start dealing with contraception. So, anyway, this program went on but it wasn't very successful and the reason was, the women were using abortion and were quite happy with it. They didn't see anything wrong with it; they were used to it and no problems, so why should we change? So one of the things that they did, and we helped them, was we got some of the right-to-life films, which show, in the goriest way, what the fetus looks like and what an abortion is like and you know are really are way, way off the deep end and shipped them to them so they could show their patients and say, 'see an abortion is not just this sort of nothing kind of event.'"
Like I say, there is nothing more consistent coming from the priests of Scientism than their constant inconsistency. And from the view of reason and morality this statement is very, very inconsistent. Dr Wyman knows full well that abortion is fully inside the Scientistic paradigm so what was objectionable about abortion in Ukraine? It was not the suffering of the fetus, which the films clearly show, or the fact that it is murder, or the fact that it is taking an innocent human life. No. For the post-human it is just a matter of costs. So the pro-life films were used as a propaganda tool inside the Scientistic paradigm, to save costs. He did not say what the cost of an abortion was in Ukraine but via common sense we know it was more expensive than an 80 cent round of birth control pills, penny condoms or buck-twenty-five diaphragm. Please notice that in the post-human paradigm the suffering of humans is meaningless, but the cost to continue the worldwide campaign of Eugenics has to be considered.
Notice, following the story of Ukraine is the story of Cuba, where a culture of death holds the population in sway. Our lecturer seems to think this is humorous. All communist regimes have created cultures of death, and the international capitalist regimes are not doing any better. In fact, Eugenics is becoming a crony-capitalist goal.
If you think that I've exaggerated at all about the Culture of Death created by the Secular post-humanists. Time to get rid of the very young and the very old. It is all about money, only the "cost" matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment