They say Justice is blind, and it’s not merely that she is blind, but that she must be. If she sees and gives preference to either party, she’s no longer Lady Justice. She must only hear the deeds done and render verdict upon them.
The idea for this article came to me while arguing with someone about abortion. As we have made many posts against infanticide, we’ve no shortage of evidence regarding the claims I’m about to make, and you’re going to see some examples below.
Broadly speaking, the leftist argues against the child and in favor of abortion using accusations about what the child “is”. By contrast, our argument against the murdering parents and “doctors” is about what they’ve done.
The child has “been” an inconvenient thing, whereas the parents have performed an evil act. This measure of “justice” is completely novel, such that I accuse it of being a nominal conquest fallacy.
Thousands of years of human history and judicial precedent indicate that declaring judgment is about discovering what happened. By contrast, the “revisionist history” and “social justice” movements of recent decades have reframed the matter as a question of “which party is the wrong kind of person?”
Countless times have I presented some variation of the following problem:
Here is a woman who is wicked because she chose to destroy an innocent human life (her child). As though the murder were not enough, she boasts about it being the best decision she’s ever made.
I invariably encounter the following responses:
1) It is not a person; it’s a parasite. The fetus just eats the mother’s energy and resources.
2) It is not a person; it’s a clump of cells; it’s like a tumor.
3) It is just going to grow up into a life of poverty and misery, where no one loves it.
These justifications of the child’s murder are all rooted in claims about what the child is or isn’t or will be or won’t be. None accuse the child of doing a wicked act. Neither do any of these claims admit nor interact with the real being of the child.
1) The child has unique and complete human DNA, distinct from both parents.
2) The child has a beating heart at 4 weeks.
3) The child has a nervous system and proto-brain at 8 weeks.
4) We don’t actually know what the child will make of the life he’s born into, even if that beginning is miserable.
5) But most relevant today, the child didn’t ask for any of this.
The child made no choices and took no actions; has no agency. At this point, the child has merely been acted upon by others.
The child did not fornicate, nor did it murder an innocent. The child didn’t announce to the world on the internet that it doesn’t love its own family nor refuse to care for them.
The actions of the aborting parents are all actions. They are forensic deeds done in the world with choice and forethought.
The “crimes” of the child are that it “is” inconvenient: “If the child lives, I might have to modify my lifestyle of revelry and self-indulgence. I’d have to make responsible decisions and put the well-being of the helpless before my own pleasure.” … Perish the thought.
A segment of our culture seeks to perform some rhetorical sleight of hand, exchanging the innocence of a child who has done nothing with the guilt of someone who steals time, energy, and opportunity from his parents. They would exchange the hideous murder of the child for the just execution of a threat and thief.
Modern “social justice” has created a bizarre system of paradoxes. They ignore many actual crimes if you are the correct gender or color. While imputing many ancient or imagined crimes if you are the wrong gender or color. Muslims in England can rape 12-year-olds with impunity. The action is no longer wicked because he is a brown man. A woman can murder her child, and the murder is no longer wrong because she is a woman. A trans person can mutilate a child, and it’s no longer wrong because the perpetrator is trans.
Meanwhile, I look on with the words of the living God in my mouth, calling the wicked what they are, and my great crime is neither murder, nor rape, nor the torture of children. I am the most heinous of all, a white, male, Christian. Allegedly, I’m misogynistic because I’m a man; I’m pro-slavery because I’m white; I’m bigoted because I’m Christian enough to call evil what it is.
“For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water.”
Sam Davis writing for Apostoic Venn
Please subscribe for free to support and spread the work of Apostoic Venn.
Socials:
Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube
Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share
