Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Abortion & “Worldview-Induced Blindness”

posted by David Klinghoffer

The news that babies in the womb can hear and enjoy music leads Chuck Colson to a helpful formulation: “worldview-induced blindness.” A PBS documentary, The Music Instinct: Science & Song, notes and demonstrates this amazing fact about unborn children but the documentarians totally miss its significance for abortion. Surprised? Writes Colson, who is almost unfailingly enlightening in his daily BreakPoint commentaries (subscribe here):

Perhaps understandably, the connection between fetal responses to music and abortion weren’t mentioned in the show. What is not so understandable is that the program’s website contains no mention of [USC professor] Woodward and her findings. It’s as if someone realized the implications and hoped nobody would notice.

I don’t think that there’s some kind of conspiracy afoot. I just think that the PBS people’s worldview won’t allow them to make the obvious connection. Abortion on demand is only possible if people minimize the similarities between the fetus and us.

Worldview, how you think about the way the world works, can cause you totally to miss such astounding revelations. If such a thing were pointed out to someone whose worldview precludes recognizing or understanding it, he would profess, and sincerely feel, bafflement. Or he would respond with mockery and outrage.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(11)
post a comment
Glen Davidson

posted July 1, 2009 at 11:49 am


The whole legal issue is schizoid, with Scott Peterson sentenced for killing Connor in the womb, and men required to pay for a “woman’s choice” if it veers toward the continuation of life. And then you have a bunch of bourgois parents carefully documenting their “child’s progression” in utero via ultrasound, later telling the kid “that’s you there,” while they may have aborted previous such “products of conception” unpictured and unremarked.
Essentially, it appears that the bourgoisie have taken the stance that they shall name life, and so it shall be life. Perhaps it is the end goal of democracy, for anyone with enough money to be able to do what kings did, to designate what life has meaning and what life does not. Unsurprisingly, it generally means that little or no communal responsibility adheres to the middle classes.
On the other hand, this schizoid stance is so taken for granted that I doubt that PBS would have noticed it in their own program. No doubt they didn’t realize any implications.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm


Pro Choice people never seem to make the connection that a fetus in utero is a living being. Destruction of a fetus is, hence, ridding of unwanted tissue. Perfectly acceptable, no? I posit the term for this behavior is Pro Infanticide. Late term abortion? Almost NEVER for the “health of the mother”. Abortion should not be used as birth control for improvident people.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:08 pm


A fetus is POTENTIAL life. It becomes a person when the head emerges from the womb and draws breath.



report abuse
 

Dennis

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:18 pm


A woman’s body should not be the property of the State. She alone should decide what she allows to grow in her body, not male legislators. No free male would tolerate having others tell him what must grow in his body. To force a woman to carry to term the product of rape or incest is obscene, utterly lacking in empathy or compassion. The effort should instead be put on fascilitating adoption and providing effective means of contraception for all.



report abuse
 

Lauren

posted July 2, 2009 at 3:33 pm


^^^Well put Dennis.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 2, 2009 at 5:13 pm


The answer here is simple: worldview



report abuse
 

DavidA

posted July 3, 2009 at 10:52 am


Worldview-induced blindness: We would all do well to consider that as a possibility. I wonder if it ever occurs to Mr. Colson that he might be guilty of it on at least a few occasions.



report abuse
 

Marie

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:11 pm


Dennis and Lauren, that is such typical and shallow thinking… the ‘worldview’ I guess… Abortion has been sold to the American people as a compassionate solution for women, a solution for pregnancies caused by rape and incest. The person who is not sure of their stand on abortion is guilted into agreeing policies because of the rape and incest argument.
Do you suppose that there have been 50,000,000 cases of rape and incest in our country since 1972 or 1973 when Rowe v Wade became law? It would be interesting to see the actual statistic of those two situations in comparison to the actual number of abortions that have taken place in America.
The law could be written just for those incidents if it were actually meant to alleviate the pain of those poor women who have suffered so horribly because of those situations. So, I find that argument for the justification of the current abortion laws in my country simply … not a valid argument. I do think there should be some solution for those women…
Women who are aborting the growing infant in their bodies because they decided to be irresponsible with their body and don’t want to be responsible for the consequences, whether that be not being able to ‘party’ or have to give up a partner or career path for a few months or having to make a decision to put the child up for adoption, are committing a murder in every sense of the word. Even a person, who kills a woman that is carrying a child, should it die too, is convicted of two murders… the woman, and the unborn infant.
I think people are ambivalent about abortion because they do not really think about the unborn child as actually human. The ’tissue’ as it is so conveniently referred to is in every sense a growing human being whether you call it a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a toddler or a teenager etc.
I also think that they are ambivalent because they are either unaware of, or don’t understand what partial birth abortions are. I am including a website that will help any reader of my comments to understand what occurs during a partial birth abortion. Here is a brief explanation of partial birth abortion:
1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps.
2) The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3) The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole. (If the baby can hear music… what do you suppose this is like for the child?)
5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
To see additional, more detailed information and images of partial-birth abortion and documentation from medical experts check out this web site:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
After all, let’s not be blind any longer… in this case, ignorance is not bliss.



report abuse
 

Marie

posted July 3, 2009 at 12:40 pm


Your name, with regard to your simple answer… worldview.
Let me ask you a question my mom and dad used to ask me when I went along with the crowd or a friend and did something that was not a good choice.
If the worldview asked you to jump off a cliff would you follow them?
Just because something reaches status quo, does not mean that it should not be re-thought. For example… at one time slavery was considered the ‘world view’… also the woman’s right to vote was not considered the ‘world view’.
Lets not be sheep led to the slaughter… fed the pabulum of the world view… lets really think things through and come up with our own decisions and answers… This is what the ‘Hippie’ movement in the 1960s was all about. I fear my compatriots have forgotten the goal and just go with the flow of ‘world view’.



report abuse
 

your name

posted July 6, 2009 at 12:54 am


OK, Marie, you have a problem with partial birth abortion, so do I. So where is the cut off for you. How far into a pregnancy should abortion be allowed? I am comfortable with less than 10 weeks. And when you answer, please keep religion out of it, or by definition, you loose the debate by framing it as a religious matter and not a state one



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 6, 2009 at 1:24 pm


Look, almost all of us can think of a circumstance in which abortions should be legal–for example, if we knew childbirth was going to kill my wife we’d certainly be having one.
But I think most of us don’t think abortion should be some kind of RIGHT or a substitute for birth control. In California a teenage girl needs her parents’ permission to get a tattoo or use a tanning bed, but she can get a taxpayer-funded abortion without them even being notified! That is the sign of sick culture, not that abortions might be legal for some kinds of medical circumstances.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.