A real-life result of our willful plunge into spiritual monstrosity

Have you had any Facebook posts about eleven-year-olds raped by their fathers show up in your newsfeed yet? Chances are that unless you've jettisoned all your leftist FB friends, you have.

There's a saying in the legal field: "hard cases make bad law." Obviously, you want law to be as airtight as possible. When state-sanctioned punitive curbing of citizens' natural rights is what's at stake, you want to leave no stone unturned if at all possible.

But what if a given scenario is so rare as to make it for all intents and purposes hypothetical?

You want to know why most women who get abortions do so? Matt Walsh at the Daily Wire, bolstered by the findings of a decidedly non-pro-life source, tells us:

The vast majority of abortions have nothing at all to do with rape. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute surveyed post-abortion women and found that the top six reasons for getting an abortion, accounting for over 85% of all cases, were: "Not ready for a child," "can't afford a baby," "have completed my childbearing," "don't want to be a single mother," "don't feel mature enough," and "would interfere with education or career plans." In other words, most women get abortions for lifestyle reasons. They are getting rid of the baby because the baby would interfere with the kind of lives they want to live. Less than one percent of respondents said they were rape victims.

There are lots of societal resources for those who find themselves pregnant but don't feel ready to become mothers. There should be more (and I don't mean of the governmental variety). But, as Alabama Governor Kay Ivey responded to CBS reporter Jericka Duncan when Duncan snot-noesedly shouted "Where is the money coming from to support people who aren't ready to become mothers?", "You simply cannot defer protecting the lives of unborn children because of costs?"

By the way - and, as I shall demonstrate momentarily, this is not a digression - did you hear about this story, which occurs at the nexus of society's cavalier attitude toward the unborn and another kind of middle finger we've been giving to almighty God?

This week, The New England Journal of Medicine published a bizarre story. A "transgender man" entered a hospital with severe abdominal pains. Because she was identified as a man, the doctors naturally did not think to treat her for labor and delivery, so she tragically lost the baby. Rather than emphasizing the danger of placing gender identity over biological sex, both the journal and The Washington Post made the absurd claim that the hospital should not have ruled out pregnancy for a man.

"He was rightly classified as a man" in the medical records and appears masculine, Dr. Daphna Stroumsa at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, wrote in the journal article. "But that classification threw us off from considering his actual medical needs."

"The point is not what's happened to this particular individual but this is an example of what happened to transgender people interacting with the health care system," she added.

The Washington Post's Marilynn Marchione argued that this case should make doctors aware of the "blurred lines" in medicine. Citing the journal article, she claimed that the case "points to larger issues about assigning labels or making assumptions in a society increasingly confronting gender variations in sports, entertainment and government. In medicine, there's a similar danger of missing diseases such as sickle cell and cystic fibrosis that largely affect specific racial groups, the authors wrote."

Yet this conclusion is forced at best, and merely serves to blind people to the truth of the story.

The 32-year-old woman was not identified, but the journal noted that she told the nurse she was transgender at the emergency room. The record listed her as male. She hadn't had a period in several years and had been taking testosterone, which decreases ovulation and menstruation. She quit taking the hormone after she lost health insurance. 

The mother had taken a home pregnancy test and it came out positive. She also had wet herself, a possible sign of ruptured membranes and labor. A nurse ordered a pregnancy test but considered her stable and her problems non-urgent.
Hours later, a doctor evaluated her and confirmed pregnancy. They took an ultrasound and found clear signs of fetal heart activity, but part of the umbilical cord had slipped into the birth canal. Doctors prepared to do an emergency c-section, but the baby's heartbeat stopped in the operating room.

The Washington Post reported these words, "Moments later, the man delivered a stillborn baby."

Tellingly, the authors wrote that if a clearly identified woman had shown up with similar systems, the woman "would almost surely have been triaged and evaluated more urgently for pregnancy-related problems." In other words, the confusion of transgender identity prevented the doctors from giving this mother the care she needed. 

"The man delivered a stillborn baby."

We have officially gone certifiably nuts as a society. That sentence appeared in one of the most journalistically prestigious and relied-upon organs in the world, the premier news outlet in the capital of the most powerful and influential nation in history.

Allow me to dispense with a matter of parenthetical concern before returning to my main point: Just who impregnated this . . . person? What kind of human being is aroused by a woman well along in the self-mutilation process, having pumped herself full of unnatural levels of testosterone? Seriously. This is more than a matter of idle curiosity. Are we now warping human nature to the point at which there really are some significant number of men wanting to have sex with women operating under the delusion that they are men?

Now, back to the point to which I was leading up. Consider how recent the traction gained by the notion that two people of the same gender can get "married" is. No society or culture anywhere in the world prior to 20 years ago at the outset entertained such a bizarre idea. You didn't find in the world's most sophisticated cultures, its most primitive, or in any culture in between. And within what seems like minutes after it gained its initial foothold, a Supreme Court decision codifying this aberration was handed down. Now, consider how fast the proliferation of transgenderism followed in its wake.

And then we get this denial of the way the universe is constructed, resulting in the death of an innocent person.

What this case tells us, in the form of an illustration of the opposite, is that the obviousness of the natural architecture of the universe confirms the Judeo-Christian understanding that said architecture was decreed by almighty God. In short, you can tell something has been decreed by Almighty God by observing how this world works.

And we're denying how the world works in our desperation to invent ourselves, to be our own deities.

Man and woman He created them. He knits us together in our mothers' wombs. Those darkened in their understanding due to the hardness of their hearts have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity. Nothing is new under the sun.

We are most definitely not deities, but we are called upon to defend what is so. And gradualism and taking into account "political realities" will not cut it. We must unflinchingly insist on a society that operates in accordance with absolute truth.