Consistency, thou art a jewel” affirmed a prolific writer named Anonymous. Well, yes, but not total consistency. I want my car and my computer and my calculator to be infallibly consistent, but not my grand-children. I like them mostly consistent but not mechanistically so, otherwise they’d be robotic and not real. No fun hugging a computer.
First cousin to that fact is this: satire—all of which is based on observed inconsistencies— is a very, very easy genre to write, precisely because we humans are so maddeningly inconsistent. Such an abundance of material!
Ah, but the difficult thing about satire is just this: addressing inconsistencies is not acting on them, and therein lies our challenge. A writer can be two quarts low and see them, but setting them right, well, that is another kettle of fish, so to speak. And setting them right, both in ourselves and others, should be an essential focus for us all. For a lifetime. It must be obvious, as well, that before we can set inconsistencies right, in ourselves or anybody else, we must recognize them. Admitting precedes adjusting. Confessing ere correcting. Etc.
With those caveats, however, let us sit in a pool of stun by screaming inconsistencies which modern political liberals in America manifest. (Yes, of course, conservatives have them and need to have such gently and lovingly pointed out, but that’s yet another kettle of fish.)
So, ironies about the abortion issue:
- The first irony: why do we make the debate between “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life,” when for former means—in every known case in American history—freedom to kill? Why not say “Pro-abortion,” or more honestly, “Pro-death” since that is demonstrably what it is. “Pro-life” is OK, but why not simply “Pro-birth?”
- A second irony: feminists scream themselves hoarse about “reproductive rights” for women. What about the reproductive rights of the baby girl who is aborted? Her single death steals generations of female reproductive rights!
- Then this: when the abortionists heard that the Chinese were routinely allowing baby boys, for economic reasons, to live and were aborting girls, they were outraged. So, one murder is less offensive than another?
- Yet another: “Anchor babies,” the left tells us, “are precious and must be protected at all costs.” What about all aborted babies who would be, if born, anchored, not simply to the soil of America, but to life itself. How does one defend with passion an anchor to America but snub the imponderably more precious anchor to the entire cosmos?
- Another “anchor” question: when, precisely, does a new-born illegal immigrant baby achieve anchorhood? Yes, of course! Easy question. But this one is more difficult: why then are we told, by a leading liberal politician, that, for American women, “a baby is a baby when it leaves the hospital?”
- Think of it: a pregnant woman, if her baby dies by the willful act of a burglar, let us say, on her way to obtain an abortion, knows that the felon can be sent to death row for murder. She, however, if no such event intervenes, may procede to the abortion clinic, have her baby killed and profit from the sale of its body parts, in which case the life-taker goes free, and both he and the financially-enriched mom are hailed as heroes.
- Fearful for the future of “Roe,” political conservatives are insistently told they must not make elections “one-issue” deals; that somehow vitiates the electoral process. The irony is that single-issue elections are actually very common in America. “Keep America out of foreign wars!” “It’s the economy, stupid!” And how about the presidential election of 1860? Every American voter was forced—yes, forced—to say a resounding “yes” or “no” to one issue: slavery. All other matters were seriously peripheral.
A good man’s life will always manifest an inherent moral and rational consistency; an evil man’s life will find everlastingly new ways to manifest moral and rational stupidity.