Sanctity of Life

Speaking of conservative Republicans, Governor Cuomo of New York said this:

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

"Extreme", here, includes those who believe that humans have the right to life. People that believe that humans have the right to life "have no place in the State of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are." By inference, then, neither New Yorkers nor Governor Cuomo believe that humans have the right to life. This ought to get interesting the next time someone in the state gets killed, eh?

On a related topic, the war of rhetoric is disturbing. Governor Cuomo used three terms -- "right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay" -- to describe "conservatives". What he was referring to was the pro-life, those who believe in the 2nd Amendment, and those who believe that the Bible says something about the morality of homosexual behavior. I'm pretty sure that very few caught the difference in the terms, even now that I've stated the two versions. They are not the same. As a prime example, the vast majority of those who believe in the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms do not favor "assault weapons". It's not about those weapons. It's about the right to bear arms. And a large number of those who believe that the Bible holds homosexual behavior as sin are not "anti-gay" in the sense that they do not hate those people who practice such things, "anti-gay" in the sense that they despise those who have such inclinations, or "anti-gay-marriage" in the sense that they oppose "gay marriage"¹. It's rhetoric. These are biased terms being used to emotionally sway an audience -- terms that are not accurate. "Pro-life" is "in favor of life", not "anti-abortion" (or "anti-choice", as Cuomo later countered). Favoring the 2nd Amendment is not "pro-assault-weapon" (or "anti-gun control" as he later "clarified"). And holding to a moral view on the behavior of a man engaging in sexual behavior with a man is not "anti-gay"².

Be fair here, folks. It's not just their side that engages in this war of rhetoric. I'm only pointing out that using intentionally inflammatory terms to make an argument is certainly effective, but a lie. The world is under the devil, the father of lies, but let's not do that ourselves, okay? Oh, and if you think that humans have an innate right to life, you may want to move out of New York ... you know, if you believe the words of the governor there. You have no place there. (See how nasty rhetoric can be?)

It is my conviction that the biggest reason that children are shooting each other in school yards and movie theaters and the like is that they no longer believe that humans are intrinsically valuable, that all humans have the right to life. Why should they? We've taught them it's not so. We've taught them with a societal schizophrenia that says that killing babies in the womb is okay if the mother wants to, but a crime if the mother wants it to be. We've taught them by stripping moral values from their entertainment, making the bad guys heroes and violence laudable. "Right-to-life" is not what we're teaching kids these days. But I'm pretty sure that Governor Cuomo does not favor the random killing of people while he downplays "right-to-life". He wants it both ways. It doesn't work. Either the sanctity of life or not. I don't think our people will like the removal of the sanctity of life. At least, so far we don't.

________
¹ To be clear, I am "anti-gay-marriage" in the same sense that I am "anti-unicorn". I'm not opposed to the concept. I'm saying it doesn't exist. I cannot be opposed to something that doesn't exist. Nor do I oppose the equal rights of those who call themselves "gay" to be married. I simply hold that "married" has a definition, and "same-sex" is not in it. And I am opposed to those who try to make it exist by twisting words and wrenching meaning for personal gain. But that's in all cases.

² You need to be aware of this insidious slip of the tongue here. One side (mine) speaks of "gay" or "homosexual behavior" as an action, an activity, as always a choice because regardless of your proclivities, you always choose what you will do about them. The other side uses the very same term -- "gay" -- but does not refer to behavior. To them it is an innate condition, just like race or sex. In their vernacular, "gay" refers to the inborn condition of a group of people and their entire culture. Thus, while one side refers to an activity and a behavior, the other refers to a person and the surrounding people of similar condition. One side hates an activity and the other accuses them of hating the persons. See the difference? If there were people that were opposed to sliding down slides, one side would say "We're opposed to sliding", and the other side would say, "You're opposed to children who slide." Not the same thing.