Marvel's Agent Mary Sue

In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it is said that drinking a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster is similar in effect to having your brains smashed in by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick.

Watching Marvel's Agent Carter was like having your brains smashed in by a large gold brick inscribed with the words "PATRIARCHAL OPPRESSION! WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE!"

I really wish it were different. I really wanted this series to be good. But alas and alack.

My first warning was upon reading the series synopsis: "It’s 1946, and peace has dealt Peggy Carter a serious blow as she finds herself marginalized when the men return home from fighting abroad."

Uh-oh. "Marginalized" is a leftist buzzword, I thought. But perhaps it's just a quirk of word choice, I thought. Or perhaps that will be a minor point in character development. Hopefully, it won't be that bad.

It was not that bad. It was a hundred times worse.

The marginalization was not just a character development point. It was not even a theme. Instead, Marxist-feminist gender theory was the premise, point, and purpose of the entire show. It was not a comic book TV show about secret agents fighting bad guys. It was actually thinly-veiled agitprop about the evils of The Patriarchy™. In this way, the show violates the cardinal rule of the storyteller: art serves the muse, not the agenda.

Perhaps you think I'm exaggerating. I really wish I was. But upon reflection and discussion, I become more and more convinced that the show creators did not just include Marxist-feminist themes because it was their world view, but they deliberately and specifically made numerous plot, story, character, and dialog choices to browbeat the audience into accepting the Marxist-feminist narrative, from the first scene of the first hour to the last scene of the second. Come along with me and I will explain all.

"The Banalization of Sexuality"

The Murloc sent me an article the other day, asking me to tear it apart. So tear it apart I shall.

The article is called "Why I Want a Male Birth Control Pill", by Kyle Munkittrick and can be read here.

The first paragraph is perhaps the most egregious, so we shall save it for last. Let's start with, this:

"Sex as we know it has two major biological problems: disease and unintended pregnancy."

It boggles my mind that one could look at the natural function of a biological process and call it either a problem or unintended. This is akin to saying "eating has two major problems: food poisoning and nourishment," or "breathing has two major problems: smoke inhalation and respiration."

Consider the phrases: "I intentionally at the entire cheesecake and accidentally gained weight." "I intentionally jumped off the roof and accidentally fell to the ground." "I intentionally had sex and accidentally got pregnant." The first two make the speaker sound like an idiot, but the third one, for some reason, is how people actually think.

Of course, this is just the contraceptive mentality: the delusion that sex is not for sexual reproduction, but rather for pleasure, and the reproductive aspects of it are an unintended side effect. It's a mindset I frequently see in the post-sexual revolution apocalypse. And one Mr. Munkittrick seems to be afflicted with.

Dave Barry (hardly a hero of the pro-chastity movement) even made a joke about this, with one of his book titles: Babies and Other Hazards of Sex. Of course, the joke here is that we all know that babies are what's supposed to happen during sex. It's comical to pretend that they're a hazard, and not the natural end, of the act. It's like saying, "my wife and I took a plane trip to visit her mother but, unfortunately, it didn't crash." The joke is that what was supposed to happen, happened, but we didn't want it to happen. The joke is that we want the opposite of what we do.

But it's only humorous when intended, like Dave Barry's book title, as a joke. Mr. Munkittrick seems to think it seriously.

For men there are approximately four ways of dealing with these issues without the need for a partner’s help: abstinence, condoms, coitus interruptus, and vasectomies. Abstinence prevents everything, including sex itself, so it’s kind of like avoiding food poisoning and gaining weight via fasting: yes it works, but it isn’t exactly practical for most of us.

I assume when he says that abstinence isn't practical "for most of us" that he is referring to married men whose wives have a very active sex drive, and are required by their vows to love their wives as Christ loves his Church, and so must make the hard sacrifice of always being available to satisfy her. I have a hard time imagining in what other circumstances abstaining could be "impractical".

In his most recent book-length interview with journalist Peter Seewald, Light of the World, Pope Benedict XVI said that robbing banks with an unloaded gun may be a first step for a criminal to being more responsible.... No, wait, he said that a prostitute using a condom may be the first step to being more responsible, a first step to realizing that not everything can be allowed. Of course, the pope can't say "condom" in an empty room without creating controversy, and there was much discussion in the media that the pope had said it was morally permissible to use condoms (he didn't) and whether this indicated a reversal of teaching of the Church (it doesn't). But lost in the controversy was, I think, a very wise, and very insightful statement by His Holiness that cut right to the core of everything from the abortion holocaust to the AIDS epidemic. The Holy Father says in part,

[T]he sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being. (p. 119, emphasis mine)

 After reading this quote, I began to be more aware of this attitude towards sex, that it is a drug to be administered. How often do we hear someone speak of a "need" for sex, or go to extreme or even dangerous lengths to get a fix? And indeed, even from a neuroscience viewpoint, sex does act like a drug on the brain, releasing chemicals that cause pleasure and can lead to addiction.

From this viewpoint, Mr. Munkittrick's statement makes sense. It is "impractical" for most men to abstain in the same sense that it is "impractical" for a junkie not to shoot up, or it is "impractical" for an alcoholic not to get drunk, or for a chronic gambler not to hit the slots; not in the sense that avoidance would be physically impossible or harmful, but rather in the sense that the addict lacks the willpower to stop.

Of course, the way one deals with a junkie or a drunk or a gambler who insists that it's impractical to avoid his vice is not to make sure that he has a steady supply of whatever it is he craves, but to teach him self-discipline, so he can avoid the destructive behavior. Society has a sexual addiction. We insist, like the addict, that it's "impractical" to end our addiction. But what is really needed is a 12-step program. We need to admit that we have a problem.

Condoms are the best option men have, as they both protect quite well against disease, prevent accidental pregnancy and still allow, you know, sex.

This line doesn't sit well with me, and it took me a while to figure out why. I think it's because, to a large extent, it undermines the point of the rest of the article, particularly from a viewpoint on this side of the sexual revolution. He's arguing for a male birth control pill, and in the course of his argument, mentions that men already have a birth control method that also protects (to some extent) against disease. So what will happen if a male birth control pill is introduced? Well, we already know that.

I read an article recently about a study by the UK government on the effects of their program to make Plan B freely available. Not only did it not impact teenage pregnancy rates, but it increased rates of STIs. And it's easy to see why. "We don't need a condom; I'll just take Plan B tomorrow!" People, particularly teenagers, in the throes of passion are notoriously bad at making sound, objective judgments. Of course, the UK government, on discovering the utter failure of their £15 million program to bring about any good, did what any normal post-Christendom government would do: they increased the size of the program.

Women have a whole range of birth control options, including hormonal ones, for which there is no male analog: IUDs, sponges, cervical caps, the Pill, and Plan B. All of these options require planning ahead, going to the doctor, thinking about what sort of sex might happen and what to do if the birth control doesn’t work. Further, a woman is often required to think about all of these problems knowing her male partner is blissfully unaware and probably unconcerned with them. Guys just don’t have the same societal pressures or signals. Men don’t think about birth control or pregnancy as much. With a male pill, guys would be forced plan beyond just a condom in the wallet. [Why?] We would have to chat with our doctor, try different methods (ultrasound or hormones?) and get regular check-ups. Birth control would finally be on our collective male minds.

Birth control will never be on the promiscuous male mind as much as it is for women for the simple reason that men can't get pregnant. We don't have to deal with the life-changing impact on our bodies and our lives in the same way as women. An unwanted pregnancy doesn't make us grapple with the decision to abort, and bear the scars and guilt of that for the rest of our lives, or carry to term and fear how our friends and relatives will judge our swelling belly. No pill will ever be able to make pregnancy as much of an issue for men as it is for women.

No, the way to get a man to think about pregnancy is for him to be in love, agape, with a woman; to make him swear a solemn vow before God and man that he will, henceforth, forsake all others and cherish his beloved unto death; that he will lay down his life for her and their children; to give him a solemn duty to her, and make him responsible for the care and upbringing of their love incarnate. That is what makes a man think about pregnancy, not giving him a pill and telling him "fornicate with as many women as you want! Just be sure to take this."

Women, particularly young women and teenagers, are often not just embarrassed to go on the pill, but are seen as promiscuous or easy for doing so. They are slut-shamed out of making responsible decisions.

Considering the concept of slut-shaming, I have only one thing to say, which is more of an aside and not connected to the point being discussed: anytime I read a defense of chastity, invariably a commenter will equate it with "slut shaming", that is to uncharitably mock the sinner, as if it is impossible to abhor the sin and yet love the sinner. The pro-sexual revolution types seem to argue that one simply cannot argue for sexual purity without putting down those who don't live to the ideal. This is a similar to the tendency I see that whenever one speaks out against homosexual acts, he is also labeled a "homophobe", again, as if it is impossible to say an action is wrong without hating those who commit it. I find this telling; one of the marks of a guilty conscience is that it is extremely sensitive to being called out for its sins. Perhaps the shame is inferred rather than implied.

Since I do not wish to be accused of arguing with a straw man, I point out that this is not in rebuttal to anything that Mr. Munkittrick has said. I don't know if he adopts this position, so my comment is not addressed at his words.

Many parents actively prohibit their daughters from going on the pill because they (falsely) believe that 1) fear of pregnancy will prevent early sex (it doesn’t) and that 2) the use of the pill will encourage their daughter to sleep around without other protections (it doesn’t).

Hm, perhaps I should just end this rebuttal right here. It is clear that I am completely unqualified to debate Mr. Munkittrick, since he quite clearly has met every single female on the face of the planet, and is familiar enough with each of them to know that not a single women would ever not engage in sexual intercourse out of fear that she would get pregnant.

Sarcasm aside, he may have a point. Jennifer Fulwiler mentions that:

On multiple occasions when I was a young teen I recall hearing girls make the comment that they would readily risk dangerous back-alley abortions or even consider suicide if they were to face unplanned pregnancies and abortion wasn’t legal. Though I was not sexually active, it sounded perfectly reasonable to me —that is how much we desired not to have babies before we were ready. Yet the concept of just not having sex if we weren’t ready to have babies was never discussed. It’s not that we had considered the idea and rejected it; it simply never occurred to us.

 She describes the effects of the contraceptive mentality. When the idea that we have a right to enjoy sex without consequences becomes ingrained firmly enough in our mindset, it is possible that people will no longer even consider the consequences of sex. Of course, the solution to this is not to further entrench this simple madness, but rather to ingrain that pregnancy is the nature of sex.

Concerning his point that the pill encourages sleeping around, or discourages other protections, 1) see previous point about Plan B and STIs (I have read that The Pill has a similar effect), and 2) anecdotally, my mother once told me a story about a friend she had in college, whose mother, being the progressive and caring person she was, gave her daughter The Pill before she went off to college, as protection. My mother said that her friend had not been planning on sleeping around, but her mother's lowered expectations affected the friends attitude. "I have the pills," she said. "I might as well use them." And in a larger view, there is evidence to suggest that the contraceptive mentality changes the way people approach sex.

The enormous problem here is that while girls are forced to contemplate STDs and pregnancy early, boys are largely unconcerned until they have sex for the first time. In many cases, it will be the girl who asks about a condom or says “I’m on the pill, it’s ok” or something else responsible. If the two do have sex without any protection, the girl is forced to deal with the consequences, be it Plan B, abortion, or pregnancy. A male pill would dramatically alter some consciousnesses. [How?] Both sexes would be having discussions about preventing pregnancy as well as preventing diseases in sex-ed. The burden of responsibility would be equalized early on.

Mr. Munkittrick keeps insisting that a male pill would change the way men think about birth control, without ever really explaining the mechanism. Considering he has already conceded that men already have a form of birth control (the condom), how would providing another method make them think about it more than they already do? What magic properties would this pill have that would force men to focus on it so much? Why would they not just treat it as another condom? And if this new male birth control method required so much more planning and foresight than just a condom in the wallet, wouldn't most men just say "screw it" and grab a condom? People tend to take the path of least resistance. One of the criticisms I've heard of NFP is that it requires planning and foresight, as opposed to the pill, which you just take without thinking.

Another major perceived problem is, of course, is that taking the pill will be emasculating. I emphasize “perceived” because I’ve always found this argument baffling. I don’t know why anyone thinks being responsible is emasculating.

Well, it would be emasculating, almost by definition. The sexes are defined in relation to each other, particularly in the sex act. Males beget children, females nurture them. For a man to sterilize himself goes directly against his masculinity; it removes one of the primary distinctions of his sex, and moves him towards androgyny.

You know all those “man up” and “be a man” and “this looks like a job for a man” slogans? Well, they imply repsonsibility. A man takes care of things. Why can’t one of those things be his fertility? [Doesn't he mean "virility"? I was taught that women are fertile; men are virile.] I don’t want to have a kid right now, so I nullify my fertility with a pill. That sounds pretty manly to me. But the male pill isn’t just about me. I want the men around me to start taking responsibility.

Responsibility. He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

"Responsibility" means taking account for one's actions, and not shirking one's duty. It does not mean doing whatever one wishes, trying to pretend the consequences don't exist, then being surprised or caught off guard when they happen anyways. Responsibility means preparing for the outcome of ones actions, and not engaging in an act if one is not prepared for the results. Responsibility means swearing fealty to a woman before bedding her, so that should she get pregnant, both she and the child will be cared for.

That's what I learned when I meditated on the pictures of Damien and Anthony in the womb. Responsibility, I knew, means never putting my desires before their needs.

The male pill is something that men are going to talk about. “Are you on it?” “Feel any different?” Suddenly birth control isn’t something you think about right before or right after sex, but daily, in the locker room and at the office and every day when you take the pill. There will be ads on TV (no more footballs through the tire swing, please) [Please], your doctor will ask if you want it, and it’ll come up in entertainment.

Yes, me and my boyfriends, when we go to the bathroom in groups, as we always do, will talk about the pill and share our feelings about it.


Sheesh.

When an accidental pregnancy happens, suddenly it won’t just be “did you use a condom?” but “why weren’t you on the pill?” It’s easy to forget a condom in the heat of the moment, it’s hard to explain why you weren’t on the pill.

I can easily see this argument being reversed. "It's easy to explain why you weren't on the pill, because of the hassle, or because you're not sexually active, but hard to explain why you didn't just use a condom. That's easy."

[O]ne of the major benefits that goes ignored is that a male pill would destigmatize the female use of the pill. Currently, birth control is a single sex issue. The pill is a women’s rights issue, a “special interest group” issue, an identity politics issue, a liberal issue. Male birth control is not, because male issues are not often labeled “special interest group” issues (which is another problem and discussion all together).
[...]
Now for the real kicker: once the male pill is readily available, it will normalize birth control. Even conservative parents will want their sons to have birth control pills, because conservative parents know “boys will be boys.” Male sexuality and virility is a point of pride for the Fox News father. Might as well make sure the boy doesn’t cause too much trouble while he’s sowing his wild oats, right?

The fact that Mr. Munkittrick even makes this argument betrays how fundamentally he misunderstands conservatives. I suppose he must be one of those who thinks that if men got pregnant, abortion would be sacred.

This is a straw man, plain and simple. Misrepresent your opponents views (create a "straw man") and knock them down easily, because they are only an absurd facsimile of the original, and can't stand on their own. Even better, make unwarranted and unprovable assumptions about the secret inner reasons for your opponent's position. This takes the form "you're only saying that because...."  E.g., "You're only opposed to birth control because you're a man and it doesn't affect you."

The opposition to contraception has nothing to do with it being a "women's issue". If it was purely a matter of women's rights, then the opposition would, by and large, be men. And yet, the fiercest proponents of chastity I know are, surprise, women. And of course this is so. As pointed out before, they're the ones that get pregnant, so they have the most to lose in a society that indulges the contraceptive mentality.

And for those with a fragile male self image, just consider the increased male responsibility, normalization of birth control and reduced accidental pregnancies as fringe benefits.

Ah, I see. So those who oppose male birth control have a fragile self image. See "straw man argument" as discussed above, with a generous helping of argumentum ad hominem.

Finally, the male pill will put a real dent in abortion rates.... The combined impact of increased male responsibility, birth control normalization, and male pill usage would probably reduce accidental pregnancy by an order of magnitude.

I think one of the greatest lies of the post-sexual revolution apocalypse is that contraceptives reduce unwanted pregnancy. It makes sense, right? You're more likely to get pregnant if you have unprotected sex than if you have protected sex, right? But that begs the question that sex is inevitable, and ignores the influence of contraceptives on one's mentality.

Consider the city of New York. I read an article from a woman who had researched the city's approach to sex education. According to her research, New York has one of the most comprehensive "safe" sex education programs. Each year, they have spent more and more on sex education, even adjusting for inflation. Birth control is available like candy, in the city. The New York Metro had a promotional program, recently, where you could get condoms decorated with the Metro's colors. And yet, their abortion rate is 41% (60% among blacks), or nearly twice the national average.

A survey of Spanish women ages 15-49 from 1997 to 2007 found that over that ten-year period, contraceptive use increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. Over that same period, the abortion rate also increased, from 5.52 per 1000 women, to 11.49.

According to the Guttmacher institute, about half of the 3 million annual unintended pregnancies in the US happen to couples who use contraceptives in the month they become pregnant.

Citing a non-pregnancy-related statistic, the only country in Africa to post declining AIDS infection rates in recent years was Uganda, which also had the strongest abstinence program. The countries that received the most international money for contraception programs, such as South Africa, had among the highest.

And yet, the sexual revolutionaries keep crying for more contraceptives to cure the scourge of unwanted pregnancy. And yet it's contraception that gives us the concept of unwanted pregnancy. If sex is approached from the viewpoint that pregnancy is the natural consequence, and people behave responsibly, then the only pregnancies that occur will be wanted. Pregnancy only becomes unwanted when they think they can have sex without it.

I don’t want my only birth control options to be a condom, vasectomy, or trusting her.

"Trusting her." Because he doesn't want to have to trust the person he's sleeping with. See sexuality, dehumanization of.


But when he asks for a male birth control pill, he's asking women to trust him. This undermines his previous point about reducing the unwanted pregnancy rate. A male birth control pill will just provide men with another way of seducing women. "It's OK," Don Juan says, "I'm on the pill." Of course, Don Juan doesn't care if she gets pregnant, as he won't see her after tomorrow morning.

How many women will be left in tears, sitting in the bathroom, holding the pregnancy test? "He told me it was OK." No, even from a pro-revolutionary perspective, its best if she who bears the consequences maintains the safeguard.


And, as I promised, the first paragraph last:

The 50th Anniversary of the Pill was last year. Lots and lots of people mentioned how good, bad, unimportant, or essential the Pill has been. Our society changed the way it thought about sex, about reproduction, even about love and relationships.

Yes, it did. Now, sex is merely for pleasure. Reproduction is like getting struck by lightning—an accident that happens for no good reason, and love and relationships are disposable.

Women being able to take control of their reproductive abilities is one of the greatest advancements in the history of modern human biology.

The Murloc laughed at this line. The Murloc—who has never touched a Pill, IUD, patch, diaphragm, sponge, cervical cap, or injection, and has gotten pregnant exactly twice, exactly when she wanted—laughs at the insinuation that a pill is necessary for her to control her reproductive abilities.

That aside, really, Mr Munkittrick? Greatest advancement in the history of modern human biology? Greater than the polio vaccine? The rabies vaccine? Early detection and treatment for cancer? NICUs? Insulin injections? X-rays? MRIs? Anesthetics? Antibiotics? All these methods that have saved perhaps billions of lives, and one of the greatest he can come up with is something that allows him to get his jollies with no consequences?

What a tool.

Even if it isn’t universally beloved, the Pill is worth defending and improving. It makes the world a better place. Female hormonal birth control is an exemplary form of human enhancement.

We now present the closing arguments in the trial of the contraceptive mentality, and the effect it has had on the world. Speaking for the defense is Roosh, a professional Pick-Up Artist:

Sleeping with a ton of women has some mental consequences that aren’t ususally talked about. Here are four things that I have noticed:

• Inability to view women as equal human beings. My default opinion of any girl I meet is “worthless dirty whore until proven otherwise.” When so many girls have opened their legs up for me so quickly and easily, it’s hard for me to respect them (and their opinions or ideas) like I would a family member or close friend. I think this is leaking out into other areas of life as someone pointed out to me that I seem to read books written only by men.
• Decreasing ability to sympathize and empathize with the female condition. Because I learned early on that talking to a girl about her problems or issues is the fastest way out of her pants, it’s become habit for me to simply nod or say “That sucks” when a girl has a genuine problem, even one that I can help solve. I have no desire to help a girl out with her life, and I don’t care if she falls flat on her face.
• Decreasing patience to work things out. I don’t give a girl more than one chance to act “right” because it’s so easy to find a new whore at the bar. My ability to stay in a long-term relationship, putting up with its natural ups and downs, is evaporating as I adopt the mentality of a dictator, with my bitch the subservient who must attend to my needs without making any mistakes. Over the years my temper has greatly shortened.
• Decreasing view of sex as a beautiful act of love. Sex is a mechanical means for me to relieve the pressure building up in my sack and nothing more, one small step above jerking off with my tight-gripped hand. I do not feel any closer to a girl when I pump her, and most of the time I respect her less because my opinion of her as a worthless dirty whore who probably likes being choked was proven correct.

The only way I see to reverse these consequences is to step out of the game completely and go through a massive cold streak that makes me value a woman again, to see her as something important that I need. Since I don’t see this happening, the odds that I will meet a new girl who I genuinely care for and maybe even love will be about the same as me winning the grand prize of a scratch ticket lottery game. And I’m fine with that. For now. ("The Dark Side of Game")

Speaking for the prosecution is Pope Paul VI:

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. (Humanae Vitae, 17)

The defense and prosecution are in agreement, it seems.


I've said it before, but I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: a society in which everyone strives for the ideal of chastity, where women are held as sacred, sex is not sought except within marriage, and even then it is always open to life, is a society where families stay together, children have two loving parents, divorce and domestic violence are rare, unwanted pregnancy is unheard of, and abortion and STIs are unknown. The society where chastity is unheard of is... well, we all know that society. We live in it.

Unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, sexual abuse, divorce and broken families, fatherless children, and abortion are the prices of turning away from chastity. Are they really worth a few fleeting moments of pleasure?

A Pair of Deuces, Revisited. Part II: Marriage

Part of the ongoing conversation.

Devin says: "Same-sex marriage is not asking for special recognition to gay relationships. It is simply asking for them to be seen as equal. At this junction, we have a separate but equal idea of marriage in this country. This has been the case throughout history whenever social issues have come to the forefront. When interracial marriage was introduced, it was seen as the bane of people's existence."

This seems to be a favorite line of reasoning of the proponents of gay "marriage", that of comparing it to racial inequality. Frankly, I just don't see the comparison.

Under the proposition that "all men are created equal" (and remember that is the gender-neutral definition of the word man, since context does not require it to refer to males-only)—a proposition unique to Christendom, I might add—racist actions are contrary to truth. Treating people as unequal contradicts this idea known through reason.

But the debate over gay "marriage" isn't about whom, it's about what. It's not about equality of persons, it's about equality of relationships. I have never heard it proposed that "all relationships are created equal," and to do so would be absurd. No one would (or could) argue that the relationship I have with my cat is equal to the one I have with my son, which in turn is not equal to the one I have with my wife, or the one I have with God. Each one of these relationships is different, unique, and inherently unequal.

So in order to justify gay "marriage" as an equality battle, one first has to demonstrate, contrary to common sense and empirical evidence, that homosexual relationships are equal or equivalent to heterosexual ones. Lest we forget how they differ, there is this. In order for a homosexual relationship to be equal, they would have to be capable of producing, at least in principle, something of equal value to a human life.

"Homosexuals do have the rights of everyone else except in this one. And I suppose we can take the route that marriage is not a right but a privilege, but then we get into hegemony and privilege and that becomes a controversial topic and this one is controversial enough, so let's not go there."

What? Devin avoiding controversy ;-)

Funny thing: prior to a year or two ago, I had never heard the phrase or concept "fundamental right to marry". It almost feels like I stepped into a parallel universe where this concept is one that has been taught for centuries.

But again, the thing being debated here is not the "fundamental right to marry", but rather "the fundamental right to marry whomever I wish." Slippery slope arguments apply here, as this same line of reasoning can be used to justify polygamy, incest, and really whatever other type of sexual perversion we wish.

"So I suppose the main question is why does anyone get married in the first place? Some would say love, other say for security (marriage protects the woman, the man and the children) and other say that the purpose of a marriage is to raise a family."

As I have stated before, the institution of marriage, and governments involvement in it, is to ensure that children are raised by their parents by positively encouraging people not to engage in procreation until they are ready to deal with the consequences; to positively encourage spouses to stay together; and to negatively discourage spouses from abandoning each other and their children. If marriage is simply about love, then there is no reason for societal involvement in it.

"So simply because gay people cannot have children naturally they should be unable to wed? What does that say about people who happen to be infertile? Shouldn't they follow the same rules?"

Aha! Finally, in my opinion, the only good argument against child-bearing as the reason for marriage: infertility. However, I have heard too many good arguments to consider this a promising line of reasoning for gay marriage.

Firstly, how does the couple know there infertile? It would have been impossible for the Murloc and I to know that before we got married. Secondly, if they think they're infertile, how certain can they be? Couples who have thought they were infertile have still gotten pregnant. Even if they honestly believe they can't conceive, I would prefer people act prudently and act as if they could, lest a surprise occur. This also applies to people who get married with no intention of ever having children.

But the big point here is that these infertile couples can still conceive in potentiality, even if the specifics of their situation don't permit it (technically every woman is infertile about 75% of the time). Heterosexual sex, even when infertile, is still a different kind of sex than homosexual sex, since the latter does not even have that potential. To equate homosexual relationships with infertile heterosexual relationships is to confuse the general with the specific.

"What about people who abuse their children/each other? If the purpose is for security and there is no security, should the marriage be invalidated? What about if love goes out of the equation?"

This argument is a specific type of logical fallacy. There is probably a name for it, but I only know it as "the abuse does not nullify the use."

Examples of this logical fallacy in other contexts.

Proposition: Jews are good people.
Fallacious counter-argument: But Bernie Madoff was a Jew and he swindled people out of millions of dollars.
The specific example here does not counter the goodness of every other Jew.

Proposition: The Catholic Church has been one of the driving forces for scientific progress over the last 1000 years.
Fallacious counter-argument: But Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the Church for his scientific teachings.
The specific example here does not counter the hundreds of other ways in which the Church positively encouraged the development of the scientific world view.

Proposition: Marriage ought to be between one man and one woman to provide security for the rearing of children.
Fallacious counter-argument: But a small percentage of marriages do not provide security.
The specific example here does not counter the vast majority of marriages that do, nor even the ideal form of marriage.

John C. Wright, great opponent of gay "marriage" that he is, once wrote a piece where he shot down the argument that gay marriage should not be allowed because gay marriages were not as healthy as straight ones. His words: "no one would argue that if everyone in the neighborhood but me and my bride were fornicating like bigamous weasels, a prudent magistrate would forbid legal recognition of marriage to me and my bride. How is my right to get married barred, or even influenced, by the misuse others make of their rights? If I lived in a neighborhood of slanderers, would a prudent lawmaker take away from me the right to freedom of the speech? Or would he merely punish slander?"

No, because some marriages are not the ideal in no way means that any marriage ought not try to be.

"It seems to me that there exists the idea that we should be picky about what we will allow to happen and what we won't."

In a word, duh. We ought to be incredibly picky about what we will allow to happen and what we won't. We won't allow murder, rape, theft, arson, prostitution, perjury, slander, scams, speeding, double-parking, false advertising, or medical malpractice. To name a few. The purpose of the law is exactly to be picky about what we will and won't allow to happen.

"I don't disagree that we live in a society of instant gratification and entitlement. And perhaps there are far too many easy ways out, but what does this have to do with marriage."

In brief, the prudent use of sex requires self control, which is contrary to the philosophy of instant gratification. The desire for instant gratification as it pertains to sex requires that sex be consequence-free and marriage be unnecessary. Both of those in turn lead to permitting gay "marriage" and the need to do away with the consequences of sex.

"Because one person might consider being homosexual to be a sin does not mean that that person does."

Largely irrelevant. I could substitute just about anything in place of homosexuality and still have a true statement ("Because one person might consider slavery/racism/murder/child prostitution to be a sin does not mean that another person does.") The universality/commonality or lack thereof of a belief has no bearing on its truth value.

Also, a point of semantics (which I think you knew) is that the Catholic Church does not consider being homosexual to be a sin. Sin is an act of volition. Homosexuality is a condition and therefore cannot be a sin. Acting on homosexual desires can be a sin. We will sometimes call homosexuality a disordered inclination.

"You are more than willing to call me all sorts of horrible names (although I know that you never would - that's the thing I honest and truly love about Jesus), but it doesn't mean that I would call myself them nor accept your titles."

I hope you meant the first part rhetorically. If I ever gave the impression that I want to call you names or think ill of you, I sincerely apologize. It is not my desire or intent to insult or denigrate you.

"The attitudes of sex in this country are off, yes it's true. The attitude of sex should be: Here is the situation. Here are the possible consequences. Here's why you should not do it before you are ready/married (however you choose to put it). Here's the best way to not have to deal with them - Have respect for your body. Have love for yourself. Have trust and faith in your decisions and your intuitions. Have enough self-respect and self-confidence to ignore what the media/peers tell you. Surround yourself with like-minded people or have enough chutzpah to tell those you choose to surround yourself with to piss off. However, just because that is how we should raise our children does not mean that our ideal has the potential to come true."

Applause! A beautifully written paragraph, it perfectly expresses my thoughts and warms my heart to know we agree so perfectly on at least this one thing.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Teaching self respect and prudence are extremely important to combating the dangers of unwanted pregnancy and STIs. The difficulty is that when society, the media, and peers have nothing but contempt for those values, it is extremely difficult for parents (who, remember, are often the epitome of un-cool to teenagers) to teach this message. I worry that a society that embraces consequence-free sex will make the parents' job that much harder.

I think that one reason you may have difficulty understanding this (if you do have difficulty), is that from what I know about you, you were unlike most teenagers. You respected yourself and loved your parents. You put on the role of a wholesome person with the ease that post people put on a shirt. This is not so easy for many other people. Many, if not most, teenagers struggle with this. The teenage years are when kids begin to question the wisdom of their parents and open themselves to dangerous influences. In order for these teenagers to not fall into dangerous pits, society has to help the parents by not doing everything it can to undermine them.

"I cannot see how same-sex marriage would weaken marriage. I have never been able to see how love can weaken marriage."

You might have a point here if any kind of love were sufficient for marriage. But that is not the case. I love Damien, my mother and father, and my brother and sister, but not with the kind of love required for marriage. Marriage requires a special bond of conjugal love, the kind that physically manifests itself in the person of the child it creates. Changing marriage so that it involves another type of love, no matter how true or real, threatens to change society's idea of the institution so that people no longer think the special conjugal love is required.

"The institution of marriage has been challenged by lack of respect for our spouses, lack of love for our spouses, lack of conviction, enthusiasm in temptation and lack of condemnation from friends."

I could not agree with you more. A brilliant observation. Brava!

"I can see what you mean about the separation between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the realm of responsibility for their actions regarding the possible consequences of sex. However, you cannot negate the fact that things just don't work any other way. I like the analogy, but it doesn't work the biology department."

You are, of course, correct. The consequences of an instance of homosex are minute compared to the consequences of imprudent heterosex. The homosexuals haven't irresponsibly risked the creation of a life for which they are unprepared to care and love. This is why I harbor sympathy and perhaps a bit of pity (but not in a condescending way) for homosexuals. They don't appear to harm anyone with their acts, but yet I can't condone it simply because doing so would condone the separation of sex and procreation.

"I agree that the choice is between all those things, but I cannot understand how homosexual unions equal sorrow."

If the equation were true, if homosexual unions always and inevitably lead to sorrow, then gay marriage would not even be an issue. It would be plain for all the world to see that this type of relationship could never be good. But that is of course not the case.

Perhaps one of the greatest definitions of sin I have ever heard was one given by Fr. Robert, a resident priest at our parish. "Sin," he says, "is a love of the good in the wrong way." If all sin automatically lead to misery, then no one would ever do it. It would be too obvious and no one would take the risk. But sin, as Father points out, involves love of something good. Since love is involved, the harm of the sin may be blurred or obfuscated by the love, and the sinner may get away with his sin with no harm. This is sin's greatest strength. But the good of love can still work through the sin, and that is sin's greatest weakness.

Of course, this is a theological discussion and has no place in a discussion of political ramifications. I understand your frustration with this seemingly false dichotomy that gay marriage automatically leads to unwanted pregnancy. I myself have difficulty seeing the connection, which is why I humbly defer to the wisdom of others; my Church, my parents, the philosophers, and other wise men and women who see the connections between the philosophy that permits gay marriage and the one that breaks down the sexual boundaries protecting women, men, and children.

It would be wonderful if human nature was pliable enough that we could completely disassociate these two philosophies. If gays behaved as perfectly as chaste Christians, saved themselves for their spouses, practiced the virtues of prudence and self-mastery, and discouraged fornication amongst themselves and others, then I would have no argument. But this is not the case. There is a connection between acceptance of homosexuality and unchastity in heterosexual relationships, even if it is only a non-causal correlation. They seem to come together. Perhaps it is a false dichotomy to say that you can either do away with gay marriage or unwanted pregnancy, but history appears to tell us otherwise. When the world turned away from chastity, it opened itself to both homosexuality and the behaviors that lead to sorrow and tears for the women sitting in the doctor's office, awaiting the results of their pregnancy test. Maybe these two can be separated. Maybe we can create world where women are always loved, children are always embraced and never thought of as a punishment, and homosexuality is accepted. But sad human experience indicates otherwise. I simply cannot see how fallen men are capable of such a world.

A Pair of Deuces, Revisited. Part I: Abortion

I put on my robe and John C. Wright hat.


Devin has responded to my arguments that marriage does not apply to homosexual relationships. She has done so in more words than I used to make the original post. Her comment warrants a more detailed reply than what will fit in a combox, so I will dedicate two posts to it. This, the first post, deals with the first part of her reply, about the seemingly-unrelated topic of abortion. It is actually somewhat appropriate considering there is a direct and strong link between homosexual "marriage" and abortion, which I will talk about later.

Devin linked to a video from NARAL where several women spoke of alleged misinformation given to them at an unnamed "Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center". I watched the video, and my first response was the word most commonly written in red ink on my history papers by Miss Smyth, my high school history teacher: "evidence". I.e., the lack thereof. Unlike the video I linked, which shows the statements of a nurse in a Planned Parenthood clinic giving false information to a patient, the NARAL video consists only of a series of women stating things which allegedly they were told at an unnamed crisis pregnancy center, like neighbors gossiping over the fence. No context is given for these statements. We are not told who made them, if they were in printed materials, if they were spoken, what the context was, if they represent the view of one recently-hired nurse or the director of the center. We are not told the affiliation of the center, if it was run by a major national pro-life organization or out of someone's garage. All those details are left to the viewers imagination to encourage us, I guess, to assume the worst.

For these reasons alone, I could dismiss the entire video as uninformative and unhelpful, but I will address the allegations point by point.

First alleged statement: HIV can swim through the holes in condoms.
Well, if there are holes in the condom, this is true. But I assume the statement refers to the urban legend that HIV is small enough to fit between the molecules of the condom, or whatever.

While this has been debunked, it is largely irrelevant the point about condoms' ineffectiveness. The typical use conception rate for condoms is 10-18% per year [Guttmacher Institute (1992). "Choice of Contraceptives". The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics 34 (885): 111–114]. That means if 100 women use condoms as their primary form of birth control for one year, 10-18 of them are expected to get pregnant. The "perfect" use pregnancy rate is 2% per year.

The rate of breakage is between 0.4% and 2.3%, while the rate of slippage is between 0.6% and 1.3%. [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (2001-07-20). "Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention".] Even if no breakage or slippage is observed, 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom. [Walsh, T; Frezieres, R; Peacock, K; Nelson, A; Clark, V; Bernstein, L; Wraxall, B (2004). "Effectiveness of the male latex condom: combined results for three popular condom brands used as controls in randomized clinical trials". Contraception 70 (5): 407–13.]

So while the details of the alleged statement may be wrong, the message is correct: condoms can't always protect against HIV.

Second alleged statement: Your risk of breast cancer almost doubles after one abortion.
This is a true statement, or near enough to it. If the National Cancer Institute disagrees, then they have their collective heads stuck firmly in the sand, to the detriment and harm of women worldwide.

Here is a list of studies that have found more than a two-fold increase in breast cancer risk after abortion:

• M. Segi, et al., “An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan,” GANN, Vol. 48, Supplement: April, 1957.
• Pike, et al., (1981) British Journal of Cancer 43 Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women 
• Nishiyama, (1982) Shikoku Ichi 38: 333-43
• Laing et al., (1993) Journal of the National Medical Association 85:931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African - American women: the Howard University Tumor Resistry experience
• Laing, et al., (1994) Genetic Epidemiology 11:A300 Rohan et al. American Journal of Epidemiology September 1988;128(3):478-89.
• Rohan, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology 1988 Sep;128(3):478-89
• A population-based case-control study of diet and breast cancer in Australia.
• Bu, et al., (1995) American Journal of Epidemiology 141:S85

Here is a list of studies that show an increased risk of breast cancer, due to abortion.

• Ye, et al., (2002) British Journal of Cancer 87:977-981
• Brinton, et al., (1983) British Journal of Cancer 47:757-62 Reproductive factors in the etiology of breast cancer.
• Rosenburg, et al., (1988) American Journal of Epidemiology 127:981-9 Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion.
• Marcus, et al., American Journal of Public Health 1999 Aug; 89(8):1244-7 Adolescent reproductive events and subsequent breast cancer risk.
• Palmer, et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control 8:841-9 Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer.
• Lazovich, et al., Epidemiology 2000 Jan;11(1):76-80 Induced abortion and breast cancer risk.
• Daling, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology 1996 Aug 15;144(4):373-80 Risk of breast cancer among White women following induced abortion.
• Daling, et al., Journal of National Cancer Institute 1994 Nov 2;86(21):1584-92 Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion.
• Laing, et al., Journal of National Medical Association 1993 Dec;85(12):931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience.
• White, et al., (1994) Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86:505-14 Breast cancer among young U.S. women in relation to oral contraceptive use.
• Newcomb, et al., (1996) Journal of the American Medical Association 275:283-7 Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer.
• Howe, et al., International Journal of Epidemiology 1989 June;18(2):300-4 Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40.
• Andrieu, et al., British Journal of Cancer 1995 Sep;72(3):744-51 Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer—a combined analysis of six case-control studies.
• Hirohata, et al., (1985) National Cancer Institute Monograph 69:187-90 Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: a case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan.
• Ewertz & Duffy (1988) British Journal of Cancer 68:99-104 Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark.
• Lipworth, et al., (1995) Int Journal Cancer 61:181-4 Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece
• Rookus & van Leeuwan Journal Natl Cancer Inst 88:1759-64 Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study
• Talamini et al. (1996) Eur Journal Cancer 32A:303-10 The role of reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause
• Watanabe & Hirayama (1968) Nippon Rinsho 26:1853-9
• Dvoirin & Medvedev (1978) Meth Prog Breast Cancer Epidemiol Research, Tallin 1978. USSR Acad Sci pp 53-63 (In Russian)
• Le, et al., (1984) British Journal of Cancer 72:744-51
• Luporsi, (1988) British Journal of Cancer 72:744-51
• Wu et al., (1996) British Journal of Cancer 73:680-6
• Robertson, Van Den Donk, Primic-Zakelj, MacFarlane, Boyle, The association
• between induced and spontaneous abortion and risk of breast cancer
• in Slovenian women aged 25-54. Breast 2001; 10:291-8.

Thirteen of 15 studies conducted on post-abortive American women report increased risk of breast cancer. Seventeen studies are statistically significant and 16 found increased risk. Most of the studies were conducted by abortion supporters. The first study was published in an English publication in 1957 and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 relative risk, or 160-percent, increased risk of breast cancer among women who had abortions. These studies suggest that an induced abortion causes biological changes to occur in a woman’s breasts which make her more susceptible to breast cancer. Approximately 1 in 100 women procuring an abortion is expected to die as a result of abortion-induced breast cancer. [M. Segi, I. Fukushima and M. Kurihara, An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan, GANN (Japanese Journal
of Cancer Research) 48 (Suppl.) (1957): 1-63.]

As of March, 2002, there have been published in the worldwide medical literature 37 studies reporting data on the risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion. Twenty-eight of these studies report increased risk. Thirteen of the 15 American studies report increased risk, eight with statistical significance (at least 95 percent probability that the result is not due to chance) irrespective of age at first full term pregnancy. The relative risk increase of the 37 studies combined is 30 percent. [(2002, July). APLOG Statement on Abortion & The Risk of Breast Cancer, Physicians for Life.]

Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion. She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate."

Even Planned Parenthood admits the breast cancer/abortion connection: “It is known that having a full-term pregnancy early in a woman’s childbearing years is protective against breast cancer. ... Interruption during the first trimester of a first pregnancy causes a cessation of cell differentiation, which may result in a subsequent
increase in the risk of cancerous growth in these tissues.” [(1997, September 5). Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc. Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Issues 3.]

This is what I found in about 30 minutes of searching. One could write volumes on the proven link between abortion and breast cancer, and volumes have been written, but I will stop here, my case having been made.

To address the National Cancer Institute's study, their summary report, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer," reached contradictory conclusions with respect to the link between abortion and breast cancer. It acknowledges one of the two breast cancer risks associated with abortion - the protective effect of a full term pregnancy - but then contradicts itself by stating that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." And during the production of that study, Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's "study" of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed.

The pro-abortion activists are tipping their hand here. They demonstrate that the sacrament of abortion is so sacred to them, so paramount, that they are willing to ignore evidence. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of women to uphold the "right" to slaughter an innocent babe in the womb. I hold nothing but contempt for these people's lies.

Third alleged statement: 28% of women attempt suicide after an abortion.
This is a slight misquote of a Finnish study. With no context to NARAL's claims, it's impossible to determine if the crisis pregnancy worker was misquoting the study, or the NARAL supporter was misquoting the crisis pregnancy worker:

According to the study, "approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, and half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records-based study. They identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. Suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9). Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage, the rate was 18.1 per 100,000 and for abortion 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women carrying to term and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers." [A. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987). M. Gissler, E. Hemminki and J. Lonnqvist, “Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study,” British Journal of Medicine 313 (1996): 1431-4.C. N.Campbell, K.Franco, and S. Jurs, “Abortion in Adolescence,” Adolescence, 23(92) (1988): 813-823. H.Vaughan, “Canonical Variates of Post-Abortion Syndrome,” Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990.]

So it's not 28% of women who obtain abortions; it's 28% of women who experience psychological trauma related to those abortions. The number of women who experience post-traumatic stress  disorder (PTSD) due to abortions is difficult to determine. A Russian study puts the figure at about 46% [N. Mufel, A. Speckhard and S. Sivuha, Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Abortion in a Former Soviet Union Country, Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health 17(1) Fall 2002.], while an American study put the number at a minimum of 19% [C. Barnard, The Long-Term Psychological Effects of Abortion (Portsmouth, N.H.: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990)].

Fourth alleged statement: The more abortions you have, the more you miscarry.
True statement. The health risks that abortion causes with subsequent pregnancies are well-documented. At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions. Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Induced abortion increased the odds of ectopic pregnancy four-fold over live birth. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility. [A. Levin, S. Schoenbaum, P. Stubblefield, S. Zimicki, R. Monson and K. Ryan., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion,” American Journal of Public Health 72 (1982): 253. C.S. Chung, “Induced Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Subsequent Pregnancies,” American Journal of Epidemiology 115 (6) (1982): 879-887.

A Boston study by a group who have aggressively done abortions denied any increase after one abortion, but, after two or more abortions, they did find a "two-to three-fold increase in risk of first trimester spontaneous abortions [miscarriages]," as well as "losses up to 28 weeks gestation." [Levin et al., "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, vol. 243, no. 24, June 27, 1980, pp. 2495-2499.]

Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66 or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent preterm delivery, compared to women who carry to term. Prior induced abortion not only increased the risk of premature delivery, it also increased the risk of delayed delivery. Women who had one, two or more induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.61 and 2.23 times more likely to have a post-term delivery (over 42 weeks). [Z. Weijin, et al., “Induced Abortion and Subsequent Pregnancy Duration,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 94 (6) (December 1999): 948-953.]

Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5% rate in a non-aborted group. [Richardson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy," British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4.]

Women who had delivered their first pregnancy had (in the second pregnancy) the "best reproductive performance." Those who had a spontaneous miscarriage on the first had "the highest frequency of an early loss." Those with induced abortion on their first had "the highest frequency of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." [Koller & Eikham, "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primagravida" Acta OB-GYN Scand, 56 (1977) p. 311.]

"In a series of 520 patients who had previously been aborted, 8.6% had premature labor compared to 4.4% of [non-aborted] controls." [G. Ratten et al., "Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy," Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480.]

"The induced abortion group had the highest incidence of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." [O. Kaller et al., "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primigravidae," Acta OB GYN Scandinavia, vol. 56, 1977, pp. 311-317.]

Fifth alleged statement: STDs can hide in the vagina, crawl up into the fallopian tubes and make you infertile.

Aside from the cartoonish idea of an STD hiding and crawling, NARAL's response agrees with the pregnancy center's statement, that STDs/STIs can cause infertility. We are in agreement on this one.

As a point of fact, neither the Murloc nor I have ever been tested for STDs. I can only imagine that it would be "important" to get regular check ups for these things if you decide to live the type of dangerous lifestyle, in opposition to prudence and common sense, that would put you at risk. Wisdom teaches us that STDs/STIs are easily avoided.

Sixth alleged statement: You probably have several STDs from sleeping around, and you’ll be dead before college if you continue this lifestyle.

It is to laugh. NARAL expects us to believe that this represents the type of official information given by crisis pregnancy centers? What was the context for the statement? Did the NARAL advocate accuse the crisis worker of hating women, or tell her her mother was a whore? Was this part of a heated debate over abortion in which the worker lost her cool? We can never know.

Expressing care for others by urging them away from a dangerous lifestyle, i.e., one that carries a risk of STDs is noble and an expression of Christian charity. One simply has to be careful of the words one uses to do so. The worker's heart may have been in the right place, even if her head was not.

Seventh alleged statement: If you have an abortion, your next baby will be twice as likely to die in the first few months of life.

See point four about the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. The actual increased risk is four-fold. True statement.

Eighth and ninth alleged statements: Because the doctor can’t see what he’s doing, he could accidentally suck out your bowels. During an abortion, the uterine lining can be pulled out entirely, and, once it gets pulled out, it will never grow back.

Context required. Worker is likely confused. Abortion does carry a risk of uterine and cervical damage. Between two and three percent of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed. [S. Kaali, et al., “The Frequency and Management of Uterine Perforations During First-Trimester Abortions,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 161 (August 1989): 406-408. M.White, “A Case-Control Study of Uterine Perforations documented at Laparoscopy,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 129

(1977): 623.]

Uterine rupture occurs during labor in almost 1% of cases when women have had earlier first trimester abortions. [140 D. Nemec et al., "Medical Abortion Complications," OB & GYN, vol. 51, no. 4, April 1978, pp. 433-436.]

In addition to overt injury to the cervix during suction curettage, covert trauma is also important. Microfractures of the cervix may occur during forceful dilatation of the cervix, which may lead to persistent structural changes, cervical incompetence, premature delivery and pregnancy complications. [K.Schulz, et al., “Measures to Prevent Cervical Injuries During Suction Curettage Abortion,” The Lancet (May 28, 1983): 1182-1184.]

The statement there is a “preponderance of evidence that abortion does not impair women’s future fertility" is a lie. The preponderance of evidence is that abortion harms a woman's future fertility. Tipping the hand, the sacrament of abortion, once again, is more important to these people than women's wellbeing.

Tenth alleged statement: When you have an abortion, the cervix is forced open and sometimes it won’t go back to it’s original size. This can lead to miscarriages since it isn’t closed properly.

Basically true statement. See fourth, eighth, and ninth points, about risks of abortion on subsequent pregnancies, and damage to uterus and cervix.

Eleventh alleged statement: Many women who have had an abortion now have bad flashbacks whenever they hear a vacuum.

True statement. Nowhere does it say that all women are the same. NARAL's response is a strawman and a lie.

Twelfth alleged statement: Everyone who has an abortion regrets it even if she says she doesn't.

An exaggeration, but largely true. 

Dr. Anne Speckhard, of the University of Minnesota, published a study on women who had abortions. These women reported:

Preoccupation with the aborted child 81%

Flashbacks of the abortion experience 73%

Feelings of “craziness” after abortion 69%

Nightmares related to the abortion 54%

Perceived visitations from dead child 35%

Hallucinations related to the abortion 23%

[A. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987).]

Dr. Hanna Söderberg, the lead author of a study, conducted interviews with women one year after their abortions. Her research team found that approximately 60 percent of the women in their sample of 854 women had experienced emotional distress after their abortions. This distress was classified as “severe,” warranting professional psychiatric attention, among 16 percent of the women. The research team noted that over 70 percent of the women stated that they would never consider an abortion again if they faced an unwanted pregnancy. [H. Söderberg, C. Andersson, L. Janzon and N. Sjöberg. Selection bias in a study on how women experienced induced abortion. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 77 (1998): 67-70. H. Söderberg, L. Janzon N. Sjöberg. (1998). Emotional distress following induced abortion: A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmo, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (1998): 173-178.]

In a study of post-abortion patients eight weeks after their abortion, 55 percent of the women expressed at least some guilt feelings, 44 percent complained of nervous symptoms, 36 percent had experienced sleep disturbances, 31 percent had regrets about their decision, 11 percent had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by a doctor, eight percent believed they had make a mistake by having an abortion and eight percent

reported worsening guilt feelings. [J.Ashton, “The Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion,” British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 87 (1980): 1115-1122.]

Thirteenth alleged statement: The only birth control you need is abstinence.

True statement. NARAL and I agree on this one. Their further statement "it also indicates that there are no other options," is a strawman and a lie. The original statement says no such thing.

That aside, abstinence is the only 100% reliable option. Women have gotten pregnant on the pill (a friend of mine got pregnant three times, each on a different kind of pill), when using condoms, when using any imaginable form of birth control (including NFP). The only responsible way of dealing with pregnancy is not to have sex unless you are ready to deal with the consequences. That is the message of chastity, of the Church throughout its 2000 year history, and the message that NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and all those who profit through abortion want to suppress. To promote contraceptives as a viable alternative to abstinence for the unmarried is like promoting drunk driving as a viable alternative to calling a cab. Yes, you will likely get home, maybe even safely. But the risks and the potential for injuries do no make it worth it. Those who attempt to live by the virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and wisdom cannot substitute safety and health for mere personal pleasure, nor condone such in the behavior of others.

A perfectly monogamous society would have no concept of such things as unwanted pregnancy and STIs. We as a society can choose between those two options: free sex or free Life. So long as sex is seen as consequence-free, we will need contraceptives. So long as we use contraceptives, there will be failures. So long as there are failures, there will be unwanted pregnancy. And so long as there is unwanted pregnancy, there will be abortion.

That is the link from gay "marriage" to abortion. To paraphrase Mark Shea, show me a society that hates chastity, and I'll show you a society that hates children. The society that encourages fornication will find the need to do away with the inconvenient result of it:

An inconvenient result. Not worthy of protection. Does not have a right to life.

Conclusion

The biggest difference between the alleged misinformation of the Unnamed Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center and the lies of Planned Parenthood has not yet been mentioned: Crisis Pregnancy Centers are suppressed by the government, while Planned Parenthood is encouraged. As you point out, the city of Baltimore is trying to steer people away from the crisis pregnancy centers (no other charity is required to list the services it doesn't perform). However, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year from the federal government. That makes their lies government-subsidized.

There is one more difference worth mentioning. The alleged misinformation given by the Unnamed Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center is at debatable, or an exaggeration, or true in concept but false in details, it is at least in some way related to the truth. You and I can debate endlessly, linking and quoting surveys and studies. We can dismiss each other's references with charges of bias or argumentum ad hominem as you have dismissed the pro-life sources and I have dismissed the National Cancer Institute's findings. A study can be made to say whatever it is you want it to say. But the crisis center claims were at least backed up by something. There is some evidence, some piece of information that supports the claims, even if it is misquoted or exaggerated.

Planned Parenthood's statement about the humanity, or lack thereof, of the unborn cannot make any such claim. The worker's statement that "there is no head, no brain, no arms, no legs, no heart," has absolutely no basis in fact. No evidence can be brought to support it. No scientific report could be misinterpreted to make her think the baby does not have the shape of a human. The statement cannot be justified or explained away as being partially true. It is simply not true. It is the exact opposite of truth. It is a Lie.

Part II to follow when I'm done playing StarCraft II I have time.

Well, I suppose I should tell my story of the San Diego State University Writer's Conference, for all one of you who are interested (hi Mom!).

Background: every year for the past 26 years, San Diego State University has held a writer's conference, designed to help aspiring writers meet with industry professionals. I first found out about it via my instructor at UC Irvine, who recommended it and has had several students who have had success at the conference.

The conference took place from January 29-31 and, after a year taking classes and working in a critique group, was to be my first foray into the world of professional writing.

The conference started Friday evening (I took a half-day at my day job so I could have time to prepare and not have to fight rush hour traffic to San Diego) with a mixer (alcohol!). The ballroom of the hotel where the mixer was held had tables assigned by genre, so you could meet with people with similar interests. Aside from a bit of not-at-all-awkward-nosiree, when I sat down at the SFF table where the only other person was a 15 year-old girl ("Hi! I'm twice your age and drinking alcohol and we're sharing a table. No, I'm not a stalker or pedo, why do you ask?"), the mixer was enjoyable. I met with some of my friends from my writing classes who also came to the conference. Also, towards the end of the evening a woman—who I later found out was Loretta Barrett, a very, very prominent literary agent—joined the SFF table. While she didn't represent that genre at all, she did mention that it was the fastest-growing segment in the entire publishing industry. She also talked about some interesting things, such as how writing isn't a profession, it's a vocation (that makes me feel better for not getting paid for it!).

The conference proper started on Saturday with a wonderful keynote address by a man named Chris Vogler, who has worked in Hollywood for years. He worked at Disney during their recent *ahem* "Golden Age". (True story: you know that part at the beginning of Lion King where the baboon holds up Simba and the beam of sunlight illuminates him? The lightbeam was his idea. He said he was inspired by his Catholic upbringing when, during morning mass, the sunlight would stream through the stained glass behind the altar and illuminate the priest.) His speech was about "the path," both of the character and of the writer. (His book, The Writer's Journey, is about the Mythic quest of the hero—and of the writer—illustrated most fully by Luke Skywalker's path in Star Wars.) It was pleasing to hear, because I've had the idea for a while that I'm on a path. It started when I decided to write a novel and it ends (hopefully) with me getting published. (I'll write more about "the path" at a later date.)

Almost immediately after that I had my first two meetings. For a non-trivial sum of money, you can arrange to meet with an agent and/or editor for either an advanced reading appointment, where you submit your first 10 pages ahead of time to be read by an editor, or a consultation, where you tell your story idea to an agent/editor and receive feedback about the idea and market viability, or just ask general questions. You could schedule in advance 1 advanced reading appointment and 2 consultations, although additional consultation appointments were available at the conference. Meetings are 10 minutes.

My first meeting was my advanced reading appointment, with an editor from William Morrow.

She didn't like it.

She was polite about it, and used what my instructor calls the "Oreo cookie" or what Stewie Griffin calls the "compliment sandwich" (positive/negative/positive feedback; although the positive feedback at the beginning and the end was basically the same thing repeated, so it was more of half an Oreo smooshed up against a mirror). She gave me a compliment I will most definitely take, that I am a good commercial writer and I keep the pages turning. Her criticisms were that, well, she didn't like it. She said that in a novel's opening pages (which is what you submit for an advanced reading appointment: the first 10 pages of your novel), she looks to discover about the central character's motivations and goals; where he's coming from and going to. Since my central character doesn't even show up until page 16, it didn't really meet her criteria. She didn't like the big action and battle right up front, where we don't even know who's who. She pointed out that there are a number of (as she called them) "sci-fi" clichés (and there's a clue that she might not be my target editor; to people in the industry, it's "SF"; ask John C. Wright): the asteroid field, the technical term with a funny spelling (although I don't think she knows what a "fluyt" is, or that I didn't actually make up that word). She also didn't like the dialect (saying "less is more"), what with the sailor-speak. But she was nice, and offered words of encouragement.

Oh well. I didn't have time to dwell on my failure or how much I suck as a writer and, therefore, as a human being. Because not 2 minutes later (literally!) I had my next appointment, with a real SFF editor, from Baen books, the largest independent publisher of Science Fiction and Fantasy in the world.

This guy knew his stuff and offered some good advice. He wasn't really there to listen to pitches or find bright new writers. He was just pointing the SFF authors in the right direction. "This conference is great and all, but if you really want to meet the science fiction industry professionals...." He told me about all the conferences where the publishers and editors and authors go (not Comic-Con!). I also pitched JF:SP to him, briefly.

"Sounds humorous."

"Yeah, like Pirates of the Caribbean... in spaaaaaace."

"There's not much market for humorous science fiction novels right now," he told me. But he did give me the name of an editor at Tor and one at Baen who, he said, if I could get my manuscript into their hands, they might appreciate the humor. Useful knowledge, even if I didn't generate interest.

He gave me the advice that I should be writing short fiction. Firstly, there is a market for humorous short fiction; secondly, it's much easier to get short fiction published, and thirdly, it's much easier to get a novel published if you've already published short fiction. This was interesting

There were a few talks and panels I attended that afternoon that were of interest. Every agent at the conference was on a panel at some point through the day, so I attended a panel of one of the agents that I would meet the following day (her name is "Nephele", pronounced "Nĕ'-fə-lē"). It was informative and useful.

Saturday ended with whine and cheese. Social stuff. Y'know, the stuff I hate. (I think that was the hardest part of the weekend for me: always being "on." I can approximate being a social person for brief periods, but to keep it up for nearly three days is taxing. I had no appetite at all over the weekend, and it was almost 4 or 5 days before it came back.) I ended the evening with dinner with the other writers from my critique group.

Sunday began early (again) with the editor's choice awards. Every editor who participated in advanced reading appointments picked one submission that they liked the most and the author received an award (and nothing else). I had already had my appointment with the editor, so I knew I wasn't eligible, but a girl from my critique group did win one.

The awards were followed by another keynote, this time by an author named Robert Dugoni, who again spoke of the "path". He told his own story about how he became a novelist. He said he knew that's what he wanted to be since he was about seven, but he came from a family of over-achievers—doctors and lawyers—so he went to law school instead. He said that three weeks in, he knew it wasn't for him, and that he'd hate it, but he couldn't quit (let his family down!) and continued on, graduating from law school and getting a job at a firm. He was successful, making money, as he says, living the American dream. Trouble was, "it wasn't my dream."

One day, he woke to go to work, but instead of getting up, he just sat in bed and said "I can't do this anymore." His supporting wife told him. "Then we won't."

He recounted the rest of his story, how he learned to write, how he met an agent (then that agent died), how he met the person that helped him write his first book, and how he finally found the agent that helped him publish. He's now a New York Times bestselling author.

After the keynote, I had a meeting with the agent (Nephele) who I spoke with the previous evening. She had said when I talked with her previously that the best use of the consultation appointment wasn't to pitch your story—you can submit it to her any day of the year—but instead was to just ask questions. After all, it's not every day you get 10 minutes of one-on-one time with an editor or agent.

So that's what I did: asked her questions. I asked her if humorous SF could work (yes) and if I'm ruining my opening by starting in the POV of someone other than the main character (maybe/hard to say without reading it). The best advice she gave was this: for authors who are writing a series, don't write the second book in the series before the first is sold. You can outline it, write a synopsis, write down notes, but don't invest a lot of time on it. If the first one is unsellable, then you've wasted a whole lot of time. Instead, she said, I should be working on something else. This tied in well with what the SF editor told me, to write short fiction, and helps me understand, a least a little bit, where the next part of my "path" leads.

Shortly after that, I had my last appointment with an agent. When I signed up for my appointments, back at the end of December, I had already paid for three, but when they released the list of editors and agents in attendance, only two specifically listed SF as an area of interest, so I had to pick one who sounded remotely close for my third appointment. (When I got to the conference, I found that the editor at Baen had signed up late and was conducting consultation appointments, so I added him at the conference.)

So I met with this other agent who I picked, I think, because he said he had experience with book-to-movie deals (delusions of grandeur, I know; DON'T JUDGE ME!).

"Ok," he says, looking at his list of consultations. "Joseph.... Space Pirates?"

"Yes, that's me."

"I don't represent Science Ficiton. No sci-fi, fantasy, or horror."

Me: blank stare.

"Don't worry about it. Tell me about your story and I'll point you to an agent who can help."

I pitch him JF:SP, trying not to stumble too much over the initial shock. I get about half way in to my pitch when he interrupts me.

"So, is there a lot of violence in this?"

"No."

"Any sex?"

"Um, no?"

"You ever think it might be Young Adult?"

Me: blank stare. This blank stare is, like my one from a minute previous, also from shock, but the shock of "Ohmigod I'm such an idiot why didn't I think of that" instead of the more general "Ohmigod I'm such an idiot."

The conversation progresses. He asks me where the idea came from. "A video game I never made." Who plays video games, he points out? (His high school and college aged sons both play WoW. I hide my boldly emblazoned "Blizzard" bag and notebook, just in case.)

How long is it? He asks. "84,000 words." Can I cut it in two? Make a series? (YA tends to be 40,000 words. )"It's supposed to be a series." There ya go.

He points out a couple other things: it's easier for a new author to break into YA publishing, and YA is a much larger market than SF.

I ask him about the agent he promised to point me towards. "That's me. I represent YA. When you've trimmed it to 40,000 words, send it to me." He hands me a business card.

The meeting concludes and I spend the rest of the conference wandering in a daze. How could it have been so obvious, and yet I never saw it? I tried to keep the story clean; language, sex, violence, etc. If you made it into a movie it would be PG. One of the other writers from my critique group would occasionally leave comments that I should read it to Damien when he's old enough. The hang-up of the light-hearted humorous nature doesn't apply in YA. All these little pieces, which to me seemed unrelated, suddenly snap into place. It was staring me in the face the entire time.

(For those of you curious about my rather odd Facebook status update, this is what it was about.)

The conference ended rather anticlimactically. I skipped the last sessions (too tired, nothing interesting). Most people had already left, and I didn't even get to say goodbye to my friends who were there.

So the conference was completely different from what I expected, but probably exactly what I needed. The Path, previously unclear where it lead from San Diego, is a little more obvious. There are two branches to follow, short stories and young adult. Now I just need to figure out how to trim Jack Flint: Space Pirate in half. And figure out what to write next. (Checks notebook of ideas. Hmmmm.)

Idiot of the Day/Week/Month.

"The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other," says Rt. Rev. Stephen Venner, the new Anglican bishop to the British Armed Forces.

More (via WDTPRS)

Other quotes:

The Taliban have been responsible for public beatings, amputations and executions, and have launched bomb attacks on Afghans. They often refer to foreign forces as “Crusaders”. The bishop said some of their methods of combat were not honourable or acceptable, but he argued that it was unhelpful to demonise them. (What do they have to do before we can speak negatively about them?)

“We have to involve all the people of Afghanistan to find justice and prosperity for all,” he said.

I like Fr. Z's comment: "And the Taliban are… what… going to change their minds and decide to cooperate with the Westerners? If we talk nicer about them are they going toooooo… stop beating their women?"

Also QFT in the article is Col. Richard Kemp:

“Elements in the Taliban do not act from a religious perspective and it is important to turn them around.

“But there are many others who will not be persuaded. Their central creed and ethos is about violent oppression.

“In many ways it is a mistake to compare their faith of extreme holy war with the kind of religion of peace and understanding that the bishop follows. They wouldn’t show understanding of his faith.”

I like that guy already.

What is it about the mindset of leftists that makes them unable to understand that there are, you know, bad people out there who cannot be reasoned with? Oh, right, they do understand. They just think the bad people who can't be reasoned with are those on the right, Christians, and those who disbelieve fabricated numbers about global temperature trends.

For a thought experiment: suppose someone were to make a rather innocuous statement about their own, personal belief that marriage involves a man and a woman. For argument, this person can also be somewhat airheaded and wear a bikini. How does the left treat such a person? Demonize him, of course! He is evil! He is hate-filled, homophobic, and prejudiced! In short, accuse him of behaving towards gays exactly how they behave towards him.

Now, suppose that that person not only thinks that marriage involves a man and a woman, but that those who think otherwise are the devil, homosexuals themselves ought to be beheaded, and woman can be publicly beaten on a whim and treated like trash. Suddenly, the mindset shifts from demonizing that person, to thinking "golly, gosh, gee. Demonizing him gets us no where. We need to work with him to secure a better, brighter future."

I think it is [insert that SF author's name here; you know who I'm talking about] who talks about PC being a disease of the mind that prevents those afflicted with it from seeing the evil except where it's not. His key quote (from this very interesting post):

No matter how many people are killed, and no matter how loudly and clearly the Jihadists announce their intentions, our public figures will continue to insist that George Bush is the only threat and the only enemy. From time to time they will also admit that the world is in grave danger from large Oil Companies or from unbridled consumerism or from fundamentalist Christianity.

What was of interest was that in the comments to that very post, many people confirmed exactly that statement: that, despite that a murderer had massacred dozens while shouting "Allah Ackbar," the only threat they were able to see was that a Christian Theocracy might try to use that petty distraction to take over the country.

Another example was from a semi-recent Family Guy episode, in which Stewie invents a device that allows him to travel to parallel universes. After he and Brian use it an end up in a place that looks like something out of the Jetsons—flying cars, futuristic technology, etc.—Stewie explains that this is a universe where Christianity never existed, and therefore science was free to develop unhindered.

Of course, this is absurd. As Michael Flynn has demonstrated, it was Christianity that gave rise to the scientific revolution. And since it was Christendom that turned back the Muslim invaders, not once, but three times—at Vienna, Tours, and Leponto—and saved Western Civilization, in a universe where Christianity never existed, we would all be living much like the Taliban, in caves milking goats.

Seth MacFarlane suffers greatly from the disease of leftism, and it is ironic that, should the Taliban and their ilk be successful, he will be one of the first with his head on the chopping block, what with his shows featuring so much crude sexual humor.

And of course, the disease of PC is as old as the disease of leftism. When the United States was in a decades-long standoff with perhaps the most evil nation the world has ever seen, save perhaps Carthage or the Aztecs, and our enemy had so many spies within our government that even a drunk from Wisconsin, listing random names from the top of his head, could guess a few, the only threat the leftists of the time were able to see was that of the drunk. I once read an interesting article pointing out how stupid it is that McCarthyism has become synonymous with witch hunts—looking for evil where none exists—when the term for that should be "liberalism". (Are you now, or have you ever been a Global Warming Denier? An evangelical Christian? A "homophobe"?)

I have read many articles and posts that try to explain why this mindset exists, and I must say I still do not understand it. This is a very rare thing for me to say. As C.S. Lewis says, "I believe in Christianity for the same reason I believe in the sun. Because not only can I see it, but by it I can see everything else." The wondrous thing about Christianity is it so thoroughly explains human behavior, with the concepts of a fallen human nature, original sin, and yet a burning desire for God and the divine. In it, one can see the cause of great atrocities and evils that men commit against their fellow men, such as the holocaust, but also one can see the reasons for such great sacrifices and acts of love, sometimes in the middle of these tragedies, such as the sacrifice of St. Maximilian Kolbe.

I get why people do evil things—original sin makes us selfish—and I even get why people go to such great lengths to cover up their evil—the conscience forces them to face their guilt or deny it. So I get why the left attacks Christians; if one is in love with sin, one does not want to be confronted with the fact of his sin, so one becomes violently opposed to those who point out the sin. "The Revenge of Conscience" spells out that case with more clarity than I could muster in my lifetime. But I absolutely do not get why leftists are willing to defend those who point out the sin not with words, but with the sword. This would be akin to if King Mwanga of Uganda—reproached by the Christian missionaries for raping boys—sent St. Charles Lwanga and his companions to their deaths then, upon having war declared upon him by his worst enemy for the same crimes, he said "aw, we just need to hug it out."

Perhaps G.K. Chesterton comes close to solving the problem. In his introduction to The Everlasting Man he states the purpose of his book was to point out that many of the criticisms shown towards Christianity in his day were simply because the critics were too close, and that if they just stepped back and looked at it from the same distance from which they saw the Oriental religions/philosophies, they would be able to better understand it. I get this up to a point. Perhaps the leftists hate Christianity because it is at home. It is like their neighbor criticizing them for doing evil as opposed to an unknown man on the other side of town. But this still does not work for me, because when that unknown man from the other side of town comes to your door and beats your wife and daughter because you're evil, he is no longer distant and remote. So when a Muslim commits a massacre in Fort Hood, Texas, The United States of America, I fail to see how the criticism is remote and distant.

I think Mark Shea is probably closest to the (hehe) mark. In an article he wrote a while ago (which I don't have a link to. Sorry. Take my word for it), he mentions that he and Philip Pullman agree on something: that those who oppose the Church will unite with whoever they can find, no matter how much they disagree, in order to oppose Her. Apparently, in one of the books in the His Dork Materials trilogy, a character—a leader of the witches, I think (it's been a while since I read the article)—gives some speech about how in their upcoming fight against the eeeeeeevil Magisterium, they would find themselves allied with those with whom they otherwise have nothing in common, and with whom they would normally be enemies.

Mark Shea agreed with this point, and drew the parallel to alliances made against the Real Magisterium. I suppose this makes sense from the diabolical chess point of view—the devil plays his pawns as one team—but not from the human reason point of view. The pawn can't see the whole chess board, so why should he trust the black pawn next to him, who in other circumstances would slit his throat? I mean, it's not like the pawns actually believe there's an all-seeing and all-evil mind behind their moves.... Right?

I suppose I may have stumbled across a partial answer while reading an article by Theodore Dalrymple (quoted here by John C. Wr—that SF author) and also in an interview with Andrew Klavan (again, quoted here). The two key quotes were thus:

British intellectuals, as George Orwell once remarked, have long harboured a hatred of their own country and its culture. This attitude has deeply infiltrated the political class and has therefore come to affect legislation. All cultures are equal except ours, which is the worst. (Dalrymple)

And:

So desperate are they to display their tolerance, to claim virtue and open-mindedness for themselves, so secretly ashamed and guilt-ridden and self-hating are they, I guess, that they will give aid and comfort to a philosophy that turns everything they’re supposed to stand for on its head. (Klavan)

This made me wonder. Is the leftist hatred for Christianity and tolerance towards those less tolerant than Christianity born from some sense of guilt and self-loathing? Perhaps.

Perhaps the left does indeed recognize the truth of G.K. Chesterton when he wrote in Heretics:

Everything else in the modern world is of Christian origin, even everything that seems most anti-Christian. The French Revolution is of Christian origin. The newspaper is of Christian origin. The anarchists are of Christian origin. Physical science is of Christian origin. The attack on Christianity is of Christian origin. There is one thing, and one thing only, in existence at the present day which can in any sense accurately be said to be of pagan origin, and that is Christianity.

If that is the case, that the left does, in some subconscious way, recognize that all their institutions and customs and laws, everything they hold dear—the university; the scientific revolution; the ideas of the rights of man; the desire for social justice, equality, tolerance; the importance of reason and intellect—if they recognize that all these things are Christian, but hate Christendom for whatever reason, be it the faults—real or imagined—of ages past, or the simple condemnation of the wrongs they commit, then they would have no choice but to hate themselves.

Christians, of course, do not have to hate ourselves for the wrongs we have committed. We have Christ's redemption to wash clean the sins of the past. We can admit that the crusaders shouldn't have killed the jews, that Galileo shouldn't have been rebuked by the inquisition, and that indulgences shouldn't have been sold without hating the crusades, the inquisition, and the acquisition of indulgences. But when you reject Christ, you reject all means of partaking of his redemption. You find yourself part of a culture that has committed wrongs, but with no way to have those wrongs forgiven. The only recourse is to hate the institution.

The left, however, feels no guilt over the sins of the Muslims. To them, I reason, it does not matter whether Christians or Muslims have committed the worse crimes. They are part of Christendom, but not of Islam, an therefore have guilt about the one, but not the other.

This is the only way I can make sense of the issue. I do not, otherwise, understand why one would hate the one who says you are a sinner, but love the one who wants to behead you for your sin.