To Expand Further

From a purely logical perspective, it is of course true that certain mothers are more culpable than other for the spine-snipping and organ-vacuuming of their unborn children.

But by continually acknowledging and harping on this fact, what are we accomplishing except giving women more excuses to latch onto, more reasons to whine that it’s not really their fault.

More- why don’t we say the same thing about the abortion doctors? Sure, they’re not put under the sort of strain as a pregnant fourteen year old dragged into a clinic by her father, but it’s undoubtedly true that at least a great deal of abortion doctors think they’re doing good work – great work, even. Important, life-changing work that helps thousands of women. Where are the calls to say “Now, now, we dont know what was in the abortionist’s heart. He probably wasn’t fully culpable…”

Or how about the fathers dragging in their daughter? Why are we making them into villains? Surely they’re just doing the best they can to help their daughters live a better life. It’s very stressful. We can hardly condemn every father who drags his daughter into a clinic to get her baby killed.

While all of this is technically true, it puts the larger issue off to the side:

A baby was just killed.

So why are we making excuses for the mother?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to To Expand Further

  1. Chad says:

    We do these things because we worship the God of pragmatic pursuit of the self.

    Sadly, the self ends up being as dead and void of life as the vacuumed womb

    It matters not why it was made dead and empty, only that it was made so by agents acting according to their own desires.

    The sooner we stop making allowances of evil for pragmatism the sooner we’ll have a culture that doesn’t need to make allowances for pragmatism

  2. Crude says:

    So why are we making excuses for the mother?

    Because people are petrified of criticizing women for anything nowadays, save for refusing to sign a same-sex marriage certificate.

    They’ll cry, and scream, and play the victim. Even many Catholics, even pro-life Catholics, would rather gnaw off their own arm than criticize a woman.

      • Ilíon says:

        Why, this “syndome” is so overpowering that some “conservative” “Christians” may even start a campaign of spreading lies about someone who does dare to criticize certain common behaviors of women.

      • Ilion:

        This is going to double as a note to everybody, though it is a specific response to this comment: If you guys want to fight, have it out on your own turfs, not mine. I’m not interested. If anybody else decides they want to discuss past slights against one another, then their comments on that issue will be immediately deleted, and with no fanfare.

      • Zippy says:

        I have no idea what Ilion is talking about.

      • Ilíon says:


        Who is “having a fight”?

        I made a factual statement concerning one particular way that the “principle” Zippy lays out sometimes plays out in practice.

        Do you deny the truth of any part of what I said? And on what grounds?

        What? That this particular instance of Zippy’s “principle” happens to be applicable to a situation between me and a certain crudé (*) minded individual makes it false? Is that the grounds or principle in play here?

        What? Do you have so little faith in the maturity of a certain crudé minded individual that you think *he’s* going to react violently to my statement of a truth? So, is the principle in play here that if someone may react angrily/violently to the statement of some specific truth then that truth may not be spoken? Hmmm; it seems that I’ve heard *that* particular principle asserted quite a bit recently (**), and always to no good.

        What? Do you have so little faith in *my* maturity that you imagine that even if the crudé minded individual were immature enough to throw a tantrum over my statement that I’d throw one in return?

        What? Do you not care for the soul of the crudé minded individual? Do you not care that with his own words he condemns himself? So, when you put up yet another of your posts concerning the refusal of John C. Wright to think rationally about some topic you consider important (and about the way he treats you when you persist in trying to discuss the matter rationally with him), should I dismiss your post (with no fanfair, of course) as, “Oh, that’s just Malcolm whining about being slighted”?

        Malcolm, there are principles in play here — real principles, the society-wide denigration-and-violation of which is what is destroying our civilization; and one either seeks to understand and apply those principles, come what may, and thus seeks to preserve civilization, or one joins with the “Morlocks” in denigrating those principles and the civilization which depends upon them.

        The particular civilizational principle of the moment is this: women are human beings, just as men are. To put it another way: women are fully as sinful as men are; women are no worse — nor no better — than we men are.

        To engage in histrionic shrieking (as women tend to do) (***) or to engage is “white knighting” (as men tend to do) when some mere man dares to make a moral judgment about the common sinful behavior of women in general, or of one in particular, is to deny either that women are sinful human beings (just like men are) or that they are moral agents (just like men are).

        To attack one’s (allegedly) fellow conservatives and/or Christians for daring to express one of the moral judgments that the leftist hive-mind has decreed may not be spoken is to demonstrate that one is still stuck in Stockholm.

        (*) that’s a pun, based on the underlying meaning of the word ‘crud’

        (**) And, ultimately, it is my adamant refusal to bow to that “principle” that provided the excuse for someone to behave as he has done.

        (***) The thought occurs to me that for a young man as yourself, who may be marriage-minded in the near future, a good test of the quality-and-suitability of some young in whom one is interested is to observe how she reacts when one makes a moral condemnation of sluttish behavior in general. If she gets angry at *you* for daring to condemn sluttishness, then *she* is a slut, regardless of the state of her hymen; and one would do well to wish her well in her life, separate from one’s own.

      • Crude says:


        That’s a good post. In fact, I may write something inspired by it. This topic is a complex one that involved lessons which took a long time to learn.

      • Ilion: Crude did something once that made you very mad. Maybe he even spread lies! I don’t care, I’m tired of hearing about it, and if you want to complain about it do it on your own blog.

        The facts of the matter as I know it are that you bring it up every single time Crude comments here, and he never does except to respond to you, after which you mysteriously disappear.

        You’re not doing anything near to what I do. For one, I respond to people directly and quote them before I post anything about them (with the exception of bigger name columnists, who I consider public figures – though I always quote them regardless), whereas you passive-aggressively whine whenever Crude posts somewhere. For another, I don’t bring up past arguments with people on other people’s blogs.

        Consider my Sheila posts and Ross posts. I always, always link to actual things they said. Consider my John C. Wright post – I linked to his original post, quoted him directly, and when he apologized updated the post as soon as I saw it and let bygones be bygones – and by the way, I’ve posted things I disagree with regarding Wright twice, once about the original argument and once about his opinions on race. I also quoted him positively in a separate post. I have actually worked directly with John C. Wright, who was polite and professional. I am a huge fan of his work. Wright is not my enemy.

        So can it, or leave. I’m tired of you whining about Crude every chance you get. If you want to prove that Crude is a liar on your own blog link to the exact thread, quote his words directly, and let readers decide who said what wrong thing.

        Otherwise, you can bring up those principles you mentioned without slyly referencing how Crude is a liar every single time. It really is possible, I’m tired of how you’re doing it now.

        I mean, even in this response. You can’t just say “I’m referring to Crude” instead of passive-aggressively slipping his username in every paragraph?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s