Chez Pazienza at the Huffington prefaces his column with the following item:
It was F. Scott Fitzgerald who famously said that the test of a first rate intellect is the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. I've certainly done my best to adhere to this standard -- to compartmentalize the separate sides of the various cognitive dissonances that have presented themselves throughout my life, all in an effort to avoid the gears in my brain grinding to a halt.
Isn't that typical. A leftist praises the ability to adhere to two opposing thoughts.... isn't that a little bit like... double think?
George Orwell once said that there are some ideas so stupid, only intellectuals could believe them.
What a beautiful example.
Well, you're going to say that this does not compare because the State isn't mandate this belief.
Or does it?
In Canada, the fetus does not legally exist, although we all sit around and talk about it like it does.
Isn't that the mark of totalitarianism?
Oddly, and for the life of me I can't really explain why, my opinions when it comes to abortion have never really been swayed by the gruesome images of shredded fetuses that are so popular with the truly psychotic among the self-described pro-life crowd.
Well no, of course not. You can hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time.
Maybe that's because I feel like they shouldn't be necessary; it should be obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and an adherence to reality what abortion does to the tiny being whose image in a sonogram, under different circumstances, would bring intense joy to a woman, couple, etc.
It should be obvious, shouldn't it? And yet everyday, thousands of people discover the truth.
And lots of people are in denial.
And that's where the dissonance comes in: I fully support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. I do this even though I think that, in many cases, abortion is an absolute wrong.
...
But where I have the problem, where it all goes wrong for me and twists me up inside, is that it is simply impossible -- particularly with the kind of technology that now provides a veritable window to the womb -- to deny that a fetus is a human life. It is. That's just all there is to it. I'm of course willing to concede that in the earliest stages of a pregnancy, the fetus resembles a tadpole more than anything else,(...)
You can call it whatever you'd like to make yourself feel better about it -- and I fully admit that I often do, simply to prevent the aforementioned cognitive dissonance from growing too loud and impeding my ability to function -- but that's a kid you're carrying. Just ask anyone who's thrilled about being 15 weeks pregnant.
Too loud?
But sir, you have a fine intellect. How could you allow such an idea to cause the cognitive dissonance to grow too loud?
Are you afraid of reconciling the...contradiction? I guess if you reconciled that contradiction, that would take you down a peg in your intellectual self-esteem, as that would eliminate a cognitive dissonance under which to operate and prove your intellectual stamina.
The only question is: At what arbitrary cut-off point do you declare that that life is developed enough to deserve deference at the very least, protection at most?
Well which is... does the woman have the last say on the issue of abortion, or is the fetus a human being deserving of rights?
Those protesters standing on the sidewalk had it all wrong. They didn't need the giant cross because they had the image of the dead baby. The didn't need religion on their side. They had reality.
Of course we have reality on our side.
But we don't fight this battle without God.
If anything God is the guarantor of our victory.
But see, secularists view anything having to do with religion as dumb.
They can't fathom that someone with a religious viewpoint might have a clearer grasp of reality than they do.
Reality has laws. You can't operate with cognitive dissonance and reality. That's why eventually, the rights of unborn children will be recognized.
