Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The Context of Life

Published

on

Man #1 shoots Man #2. As a result, Man #2 dies. Is Man #1 a murderer?

Obviously, it depends. Context matters. Did Man #1 fire in self-defense? Did he shoot Man #2 by accident? Was Man #1 part of a legally appointed firing squad or under a hypnotic trance? Was the weapon a prop gun that mistakenly contained live ammunition? There are many points to consider before we can definitively say that an instance of killing constitutes murder.

Let’s try another thought exercise: protesters are gunned down by a neighboring country’s military forces. Is this murder? Is it a breach of international law? Is it a gross violation of human rights?

Again, it depends. Context matters. Are these protesters peaceful, or are they, say, planting landmines, tossing grenades, hurling molotov cocktails, and threatening to invade the country that is firing back at them? Have these protesters sworn to murder and pillage their neighbors until they are eradicated from the earth, all in the name of radical religious zeal? Are upwards of 50 out of the 62 protesters killed members of a terrorist organization?

Here’s another one: are illegal immigrants animals?

That depends; are the immigrants in question members of a ruthless gang that rips the beating hearts out of its victims? Do these immigrants peddle drugs, commit brutal assaults, and routinely rape women? Given the context and Oxford’s alternative definition of “animal” — “a person whose behavior is regarded as devoid of human attributes or civilizing influences, especially someone who is very cruel, violent, or repulsive. Synonyms: brute, beast, monster, devil, demon, fiend” — I think we can deem that perhaps too kind a descriptor.

Some people, however, seem to reject the value of context when it goes against their narrative. For instance, on the issue of calling MS-13 members “animals,” singer John Legend tweeted on Thursday, “Even human beings who commit heinous acts are the same species as us, not ‘animals’. I’m in the hospital with our new son. Any of these babies here could end up committing terrible crimes in the future. It’s easy, once they’ve done so, to distance ourselves from their humanity. … Dehumanizing large groups of people is the demagogue’s precursor to visiting violence and pain upon them.”

While MS-13 undoubtedly deserves any visitation of violence and pain upon them, the most glaring hole in Legend’s argument is that mere hours ago, he wouldn’t have considered “any of these babies” to be the same species as him (except when it’s his own baby). And as an outspoken donor and supporter of Planned Parenthood, he wouldn’t hesitate to defend the visitation of violence and pain upon them. But because of arbitrary abortion arguments, Legend and countless other Leftists ascribe more humanity to murderous villains than preborn babies.

Ironically, the one issue where Leftists insist on considering context is the one topic for which nuance is largely counterproductive — the sanctity of life.

As mentioned earlier, not all killing is murder, nor is it always unjustified. The right to life is unalienable, meaning it is intrinsic and therefore cannot be given nor taken away by man. It can, however, be surrendered through certain violations of another person’s unalienable rights. This is why many conservatives support capital punishment for perpetrators of homicide and rape. But it’s critical to recognize that this position is taken in order to emphasize the dignity of life and the severity of seriously harming and/or violating it. Similar reasoning is what justifies depriving someone of their unalienable right to liberty after they’ve committed a crime — they’ve automatically surrendered that right based on their actions.

That single caveat aside, any attempt to contextualize the debate for life pushes the dialogue further down a nonsensical rabbit hole designed to cheapen the worth of the weakest among us, or, to borrow Legend’s term, “dehumanize” them. At every turn, the argument gets slipperier and slipperier.

The Left will say that all human life is precious, even murderers, but they don’t extend this philosophy to unborn babies.

“Context!” they scream. “Fetuses aren’t fully human, and they aren’t really alive.”

Even if we gave the Left that argument, we have to ask whether fetal life, though not fully developed, is still worth protecting.

But the Left can’t give a straight answer here either, because while they celebrate a woman’s choice to terminate her unborn child, they cry for the conservation of fetuses that aren’t even human, proclaiming their inherent dignity well before birth. Eagle and sea turtle eggs come to mind, among other examples.

Next, the Left tries to establish what differentiates a human before birth and a human after birth, or rather what about birth makes someone human, but their attempts at context again fall short:

On one hand, they say it’s about viability outside of the womb, but standards of what constitutes viability are fully arbitrary. A baby born at 37 weeks is no more viable than one at 41 weeks that refuses to pop out — but because it’s still in the womb, it’s still not a living human, apparently. A baby born at 25 weeks in a big city is more viable than a baby born at 35 weeks in the boonies. My one-year-old daughter couldn’t survive without constant care from someone else, and neither could many elderly folks.

Other pro-aborts claim that if there’s no heartbeat, there’s no life, yet I don’t see many of them rushing to pull the plug on grandpa because he’s hooked up to a pacemaker.

I’ve heard some say that a baby’s first breath is what makes it human — so what about those who require artificial sources of oxygen? And if air confers humanity, then why aren’t all air-breathing animals human? If it determines life, then what happens when I hold my breath? I have the potential to breathe again, just as a fetus, left alone, has the potential to be born through natural processes.

The same goes for the sentience test. People in comas still enjoy an unalienable right to life.

Under the law, a woman can abort her baby, but if a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with double homicide. No context can sensibly explain this double standard.

Some on the Right are guilty of it too. When asked whether abortion is murder, many engage in a similar exercise to the example I presented earlier about whether a shooting death necessarily constitutes murder: “it depends, what are the circumstances?”

There is no nuance to this question. Either the intentional taking of innocent life is murder or it is not. What difference does it make whether the baby was the result of rape or incest? I’ve stated in this very article that rape sometimes requires taking a life — but the baby is not the guilty party. Either life is sacred or it is not, regardless of how it got there.

Others cite the safety of the mother as context, but this argument is likewise flawed. Pursuing a vital cure for a woman’s ailment that indirectly harms the baby isn’t the intentional taking of innocent life but an unfortunate externality, so it’s not murder. And the case for actively terminating a pregnancy to save a mother is virtually identical to a self-defense argument, but again, there’s a problem: a baby is not an aggressor. It does not violate a woman’s rights, and a woman cannot violate the rights of her baby.

And a baby either has rights or it doesn’t. “Unalienable” means a baby doesn’t magically receive rights the moment it exits the birth canal, nor are a human’s rights any less inherent because he or she is dependent on someone or something else to sustain them. From the moment of existence, all human life has worth.

Life is the only consistent position, and it is so straightforward that it requires no nuance. Life either has intrinsic value or it does not. Context matters in almost every discussion of politics. But on the question of life, what people think is context is just an excuse to kill.


Richie Angel is the Editor at Large of thenewguards.net. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conspiracy Theory

Why we need to believe Ephesians 6:12 today, perhaps more than ever before

Published

on

Ephesians 6:12

The idea of doing a podcast has been weighing on me lately. It’s not really even a long-term itch; after it reached my mind just a few days ago, that turned into a very stout and concentrated calling that hit my heart like a ton of bricks. It went from not being a consideration to being something I absolutely had to do in less than a week.

The first episode is done and we’re ready for people to hear it and give feedback.

This podcast’s primary topic is going to be Ephesians 6:12. If you’re not familiar with the verse, you may wonder how we intend to do an enire sustained series of podcasts surrounding a single verse. Upon reading it, you should realize that what it suggests and the topics it encompasses could easily be turned into a daily show if necessary.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

At some point, we will be moving this and other episodes we do to a true podcast hosting site. We’ll also distribute it to multiple places for download and direct listening, but to get things rolling we’ll be using YouTube and Facebook to publish the podcasts.

This one is general in its focus. Future episodes will be more specific. We want to get feedback as soon and often as possible.

When we realize we’re not fighting against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, our perspectives on how to wage this battle become more clear. Hopefully, this show will be a blessing to you as much as it has been to us.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Shouldn’t the Left be held accountable for the racism of gun control?

Published

on

By

Shouldnt the Left be held accountable for the racism of gun control

Liberty control has its roots in racism. Why isn’t advocating for it considered to be racist?

We find ourselves at a very interesting conflux of issues these days. On the one hand, Democrats in Virginia are fighting off charges of racism while the rest of the nation’s Socialist-Left is openly talking about subjects such as ‘white privilege’ and judging people based on skin color instead of the content of their character as in the Covington Catholic high school case.

Contrast this with their incessant efforts in tearing down basic human rights, in particular the right of self-defense. Meanwhile, we have the 1-year mark of the Parkland mass murder, the fuse that set off the Left’s crusade against Liberty. The Left’s efforts in controlling the right of self-defense have their roots in racism, not to mention that their crusade against this basic human Liberty adversely impact the minority community, so shouldn’t they be condemned for their racism in this regard?

Shouldn’t the Left have to answer for this?

The issue of Liberty [gun] control is one of the Left empowering themselves at the expense of the innocent. What began as a way of depriving certain people of their civil rights has continued on with expansion to those opposed to the Left’s socialist national agenda while still fostering policies that keep minorities vulnerable.

It’s one of those pieces of history the Liberty grabber left would like to keep hidden away like pictures in a yearbook. In what hearkens back to the infamous Dred Scott decision with the right to keep and carry arms a factor, from the text of the decision:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

[Our Emphasis]

We and others have touched on this subject before with the point that that the original purpose of many Liberty control laws was to render certain minorities helpless in the face of KKK terror. This is exemplified in a recent article by David Kopel on The Racist Influence on Gun Control Laws:

How do you stop a lynch mob? With a Winchester repeating rifle. That was the advice of Ida B. Wells, the great journalist who led the fight against lynching. To frustrate her work, a new form of gun control was introduced.

On June 25, 1892, Wells penned an iconic article for the New York Age, which was reprinted as a nationally circulated pamphlet, “Southern Horrors.” After noting cases in which lynch mobs had been defeated by armed blacks, Wells continued: “The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for the protection which the law refuses to give.

While the laws are no longer overly racist, the incremental assaults on our Liberty adversely impact minorities as pointed out in article on The Racist Roots of Gun Control:

Any kind of licensing scheme on gun ownership represents a costly barrier to entry. Minorities of humble means are effectively priced out of their right to self-defense. Researcher John Lott explained last year in an article for The Hill how expensive licenses and fees for carrying weapons burden minorities and other vulnerable groups.

No matter how much progressives claim to defend minorities, supporting gun control does them a massive disservice. The fear and danger many inner-city dwellers in places like Baltimore and Chicago must contend with on a daily basis is only aggravated by the cities’ gun control policies.

Even the new rage of Gun Confiscation SWATing adversely impacts the most vulnerable. Since they may not have the resources to get back their property and their good name after it has been taken from them without due process. With these so-called ‘Red flag’ laws reported as reported on the site Bearing arms on The spike in gun confiscations thanks to so-called ‘Red Flag Laws’:

Right now, everyone seems to be crowing over the number of seizures, but how many actual tragedies have been avoided? More importantly, how many “false positives” have we seen. By that, I mean how many innocent, law-abiding people with no intention of harming another found themselves disarmed by force of law despite having done nothing wrong because someone else said they did?

While these seizures can be fought, not everyone can afford to do so, making them especially burdensome for the poor who often live in high-crime areas and often rely on their firearms for personal protection.

The Takeaway.

While Leftists have a distinct predilection in projecting their faults on others, the charge of racism is particularly galling. Since as Bill Whittle pointed out they have no real effect except on those who aren’t truly racist.

It is equally galling that Leftists incessantly push for gun confiscation and it’s precursor steps, a socialist agenda item that is steeped in racism. Meanwhile, they take on the air of being the champions of the downtrodden, the people most adversely affected by their quest for power in disarming the people.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Launching the ‘Principalities and Powers Podcast’ shortly

Published

on

Launching the Principalities and Powers Podcast shortly

For the past few weeks, I’ve been wanting to do something around the idea that the teachings of Paul to the Ephesians, particularly in chapter 6, are not only relevant today but may be more relevant than any time in the past. Specifically, I believe we’re facing the threats Paul warned us about in Ephesians 6:12.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

My first thought was to write an article, but on various websites I’ve probably written five or six articles on the topic over the years. Then, I thought it deserved the article series treatment; one core article with several attached articles that go into specifics about what we are facing.

Again, this would have been too small. For a very brief time I considered writing a book on the matter, but anything I were to write today would be at least partially obsolete by the time it was printed and distributed. That’s the nature of today’s world in respects to Ephesians 6:12. The rulers of the darkness are working overtime and making changes to everything around us.

That’s when the podcast idea came to mind. It’s been years since I’ve participated in a weekly podcast. I’ve been on several in the past two or three years but as far as doing my own, those days are far behind me. Now, it’s time to get back to it.

For now, I’m going to do a handful of podcasts and upload them first to YouTube. It’s important to find the proper distribution, hosting, and marketing for the podcast, so rather than put the first episodes in a temporary home as I search for partners, it makes more sense to house them where I know they’ll continue indefinitely. Since I’ll be putting them on YouTube regardless of where they’re hosted for the sake of iTunes and other platforms, it’s best to start there until we’re ready for full launch.

I’d ask that those of you interested in helping push this project forward faster either donate directly to this site, which will be funding it now and likely into the foreseeable future, or at least use our Amazon link to get us some commission while you shop.

There are plenty of Christian podcasts. There are likely even more political podcasts. There’s a handful of reputable conspiracy theory podcasts that aren’t trying to convince us chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay. But I have yet to find one that approaches this particular topic the way I intend to.

If we examine the world through a Biblical lens and report on all the things that are happening that don’t make any sense to our rational and thoughtful worldview, we’ll find the sources of many of our problems are more supernatural than many realize.

We’ll be recording episodes soon. Stay tuned!

 


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report