Bizarro Genesis 22

January 28, 2010 § 25 Comments

Our God is He whom we love so much that for Him, we would sacrifice anything.

In general, we demonstrate who or what is God to us by what we are willing to sacrifice for its sake. The burnt offerings we make define the gods which rule us.

Few sons of the American Leftist political family are more important than universal health care. Universal health care was alive, living, breathing, incarnate, unstoppable: the Isaac of the political Left’s Abraham, born late of the up-to-now barren Sarah.

Yet there he lies, blood spilt on the mountain: a smoldering oblation on the altar of the Left’s true god, the god to which the political Left is willing to offer even its most favored sons.

A god which showed no mercy.

Tagged:

§ 25 Responses to Bizarro Genesis 22

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Is it possible that Zippy has come back to us?

    This is wonderful news. Sorry to say this instead of a more contentful comment on the post, which is fascinating.

  • Ragekj says:

    Yeah, I second Lydia, even though I never commented on your blog while it was active. And your post was a very poetic way of putting it-I'm afraid you hit the nail on the head.

  • zippy says:

    Thank you, so much. I really appreciate it. It is my intention to keep my blogging activity relatively limited; but the toe is back in the water.

  • Anonymous says:

    And the world seems just that much brighter.

    Bravo!

    Fred

  • William Luse says:

    “relatively limited” is a relative term. It could mean “fairly frequent.” At least that's our hope.

  • Rodak says:

    I take it that your comeback post is meant to say that the political left has sacrificed universal health insurance coverage to the “idol” of abortion?
    In fact, the political right murdered universal health care primarly by spreading the lie that the bill–any bill–Stupak or no Stupak–providing coverage to the un- and under-insured would inevitably federally fund abortion. The bleating merinos–the same ignorant crew that backs torture and unjust war in the name of protecting the unborn (you connect the dots, I don't have the time right now)– sucked that up like the rhetorical cotton candy that is was and the son was slain not by the hand of the father, but by the words of the hypocrites.
    Oh, and welcome back!

  • Tom says:

    My ignorant impression is that, if a year ago the Democrats in Congress had all agreed on a Stupak-like approach, then there would have been time enough to resolve differences on taxing health plans and such and get a bill to the President.

    By the time each House had passed its own bill, the Democratic divide over abortion was sufficient to scuttle reconciliation, but so were other divides.

    While I think some actions from the minority party are blameworthy, they can't really be blamed for the majority party failing to get a bill out of Congress.

  • Rodak says:

    I believe that the squabbling among Democrats was over proposed legislation that would take away employer-provided coverage that people currently have (and in large numbers wish to keep.) IOW, the struggle on the left was not to add more coverage for abortion, but only to maintain that which was already in place.

  • JohnMcG says:

    Almost all Democrats voted against the first Nelson amendment that would have been more like Stupak and enabled the bill to pass.

    I don't care for how liberally the word “Obamacare” has been sprinkled in pro-life communications. But if the Dems had taken it off the table to begin with, there would have been no credibility for this tactic.

    Forced to choose between abortion and health care, many Democrats consistently chose health care.

    Obviously, Republicans have their own issues which may be worse. But I think we can demand better from the Democrats.

  • JohnMcG says:

    IOW, the struggle on the left was not to add more coverage for abortion, but only to maintain that which was already in place.

    And in order to maintain that, they were willing to let legislation they claimed would save hundreds of thousands of lives die.

  • Rodak says:

    And in order to maintain that, they were willing to let legislation they claimed would save hundreds of thousands of lives die.

    And the other side is willing to let all those thousands of others die, on top of all the abortions. Where's the distinction?
    I have to pay taxes to support all kinds of things–torture, war, capital punishment–that are morally repugnant to me. When the soi-disant “pro-lifers” are pro-life across the board, their moral high horse might be more convincing.

  • JohnMcG says:

    Most on the right don't claim that health care reform would have saved thousands of lives. When it was convenient for beating up Joe Lieberman, those on the left did.

    In any case, how awful the Republicans are is irrelevant. The Democrats believed that health care reform would save thousands of lives, but were willing to let it die rather than risk the status quo on abortion.

    Regardless of how awful the other guys are, that's telling.

    And it is also the case that those who like abortion can privately fund it, whereas those who may want to wage war or execute criminals cannot do that on their own. That doesn't make government support for these things correct, but does argue for a lower bar of percentage of the public who finds it repugnant before it is considered illegitimate.

  • Rodak says:

    The point was that people are not free to exercise their personal moral beliefs by cherry-picking those things for which they want to pay taxes. Pro-lifers should be happy with the fact that federal money does not go for abortions and not block others from getting health care in an attempt to make it inaccessible to a larger cohort of less-than-affluent people.

  • Rodak says:

    And it is also the case that those who like abortion can privately fund it,

    Do you honestly believe that “like” is accurate word to use in connection with abortion? And do you also believe that all of those people who you seem to think “like” abortion can afford to “privately fund it?”

  • JohnMcG says:

    I think they like abortion about as much as right-wingers like killing Arabs.

    Yes, the real issue is my use of the term “like.” Just like the real issue is how mean Mark Shea is to torture advocates…

    I admit “like abortion” was a poor choice of word, and would replace it with, “claim to be concerned about poor women's access to abortion.”

    Yes, I do believe that most of the people I have read protesting the Stupak amendment have sufficient surplus income that each could pay for several abortions, if access to abortion for poor women was their primary concern.

    But it wasn't. The point was to co-opt us all into societal approval of abortion. And no, I'm not going to go along with it.

  • Rodak says:

    You don't have to go along with; nor do I think that you should go along with it. What you should do is work toward a constitutional amendment giving the foetus full rights as a person. In the meantime, however, you should not block legislation that will allow millions of poor Americans–including women seeking prenatal care because they aren't having abortions–from getting the coverage they need to access those services.

  • Rodak says:

    The point was to co-opt us all into societal approval of abortion.

    Believe me, those people who do approve of (not “like”) abortion couldn't care less whether you approve of it, or not.

  • zippy says:

    In the meantime, however, you should not block legislation that will allow millions of poor Americans–including women seeking prenatal care because they aren't having abortions–from getting the coverage they need to access those services.

    Yeah. Don't block universal health care just because it will explicitly be used to hire and pay for cold blooded murder of the innocent.

  • Rodak says:

    OMG. You've come back from your sabbatical tan, rested, and functioning at the level of Wild Bill Luse and Lydia McGrew! Right, then. Carry on.

  • JohnMcG says:

    Rodak,

    Let's assume you're right, and the pro-life movement should put all its eggs in the constitutional amendment basket.

    Would establishing a government entitlement to abortion coverage make such an amendment more or less likely?

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Zippy, I believe you've just been insulted. 🙂

    What I think is hard for a committed liberal to grasp here is that anyone would ever care about a holding action or that this could ever get in the way of government pay-outs for lower income people in an entire industry. It's as though if something is legally woven into the warp and woof of that industry (in this case, abortion and the “healthcare” industry), and the committed liberal thinks government should guarantee “access” to the benefits of that industry, then we just have to shrug our shoulders and take the whole package as it is in the name of justice.

    It's hard to think of analogies. But suppose that we imagine that child slavery were legal and were part of the production of, say, much of the strawberry jam in the country. Some people have found ways to get their jam from makers who don't use child slaves. Others just do without jam. Then somebody comes along and says the government should guarantee access to _food_, food of all kinds, throughout the country, for everybody. Then I guess we're all just supposed to roll over and let the government buy jam from the child slavers to give to the poor. It's like in the name of semi-nationalization and “fair access” everything else has to go to the wall.

  • William Luse says:

    Zippy, I believe you've just been insulted. 🙂

    I don't understand why he couldn't find a nickname for Lydia.

  • zippy says:

    I believe I've been given a compliment, even if not a nickname.

  • c matt says:

    It is awesome you are back !!

  • Zippy says:

    thx c matt 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Bizarro Genesis 22 at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: