Yesterday's Senate vote: self-worship exposed

Have you heard any attempt by Democrats to explain this?

Senate Democrats today blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. The vote to stop the Democrat filibuster needed 60 votes but Democrats stopped the chamber from getting enough.

The Senate voted 56-41 to end the filibuster and allow a debate and vote on the bill itself with Republicans supporting a vote on the anti-infanticide bill and Democrats opposing it. This is the third time Senate Democrats have blocked the bill to stop infanticide as 60 votes are needed to end the filibuster. (See vote tally at the end of the article)

During the debate, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska noted how pro-abortion Democrats refused to stand up and explain why they would block a vote to save babies from infanticide.

He said, “I urge my colleagues to picture a baby that’s already been born, that’s outside the womb gasping for air. That’s the only thing that today’s vote is actually about. We’re talking about babies that have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.”

If Democrats in general, and Democrats in the Senate in particular, are aware of the polling numbers showing that most Americans, even most pro-"choice" Americans, are definitely not cool with late-term abortions or denying care to someone born anyway in a botched abortion, why would they do this?

My hunch is that the entire party is so beholden to identity politics that any gesture that could be remotely construed as detrimental to the feminist piece of that puzzle is radioactive.

It took me years to be able to take a square look at feminism. I came of age just as the Gloria Steinem-Robin Morgan-Germaine Greer-Betty Friedan wave of it was breaking over our society. It made a great deal of sense to me at the time. How come it took so long for women to get the vote? How come women automatically take their husbands' last names? And so forth.

But in the midst of that wave of feminism, along came Stephen Goldberg's Inevitability of Patriarchy, and I began to reconsider. Years later, as I commenced my serious faith walk, I came to see that there is an architecture to this universe that includes distinctly male and female traits and patterns of relations between males and females that are detectable in pretty much all species of animals.

Women house the next generation of the species. The uterus is designed to provide a safe, warm, nourishing environment for people at the most vulnerable stage of their lives.

Also, women are designed to have the desire to nurture stirred up within them when they so house such a person.

At the core of feminism is a resentment against the identity nature has imposed on females.

You see this played out in modern arguments that pro-"choice" public policy in a given state is good for that state's business climate. "Get in on the action" is the message. You're a woman with ambitions. Don't be hampered by some inconvenient gestation going on inside of you.

It's a mutation of God's design, a design by which he has imbued a woman with a special kind of love that comes alive when a new life forms inside of her.

And, of course, if she has already chosen to refuse to express that kind of love, if her child survives what she intended to do to it, it's still a bother to her; it's just now outside of her, breathing the same air as all other human beings already born. That's a small matter once she - we - have concluded that the life is expendable.

Ultimately, it's about love of self over love of the one kind of being in the world that one ought to have the most intense and intimate kind of love for. It's self-worship.

We continue to give the middle finger to God. His patience will not last forever.