Support This Website! Shop Here!

Friday, September 05, 2003

More than Judge Moore

More than Judge Moore

Geology is not a contact sport, but it might become one. The media has decided to focus everyone's attention on five tons of granite in an Alabama courthouse. Conveniently, this keeps our attention away from a nearby Georgia courthouse. Georgia courthouses are dangerous places to look right now.

You see, on a very recent Monday the winner of a Georgia court case asked the court to vacate its decision. Yes, you read that right. How often does the winner in a court battle decide to ask the court to reverse itself? Especially when the petitioner successfully contested to the US Supreme Court? And that Supreme Court victory is the decision the winning petitioner is asking the court to vacate? If we include Monday's court submission, it has happened only twice in US history.

Contesting a decision all the way to the Supreme Court and winning is not for the faint of heart. It takes time, money, and - most of all - dedication to the cause. Until this year, a winner's request for reversal was a thing unheard of. Now, it has happened not once, but twice in three months. Why the media silence?

In June, Norma Jean McCorvey, the famous "Roe" in Roe vs. Wade, submitted a 5200-page brief asking a Texas court to vacate its pro-abortion ruling. Now, on August 25, Sandra Cano, the Doe in Doe vs. Bolton, submitted a brief asking the Georgia court to vacate its ruling as well, the ruling which made abortion on demand legal through all nine months of pregnancy, even during birth. The reason? Incontrovertible evidence from thirty years of research shows that legal abortion tends to kill women. Much of that evidence was provided in the 5200-page brief submitted by McCorvey, including numerous studies showing that women who have abortions are up to four times more likely to die within a year than women who give birth. Incontrovertible evidence also shows that the attorneys for Sandra Cano deliberately lied, pretending Sandra Cano petitioned the courts for an abortion when she never did so.

So why do we hear all about granite in Alabama, but nothing about two women who want their rock-ribbed US Supreme Court victories to be vacated?

Some people support abortion because they find it a necessary expression of women's rights. That can't be the rationale for ignoring this news story. After all, the same women who won this decision are now contesting it. If that's not an example of women exercising their rights, what is?

No, these historic cases are being studiously ignored for a deeper reason. Simply put, mankind is not wanted here. There are too many of us, you see. If overpopulation is the problem, abortion is the solution. Except overpopulation has never been the problem.

Our current problem is underpopulation. Demographers are deeply concerned about the increased percentage of old people. According to the United Nations, 7% of the world's population is now 65 or older. By 2050, that group will represent 16% of the total. In some countries, more than a third of the population will soon be over 65. No government social program can support that level of need. No one mentions it, but as national economies crash, forced euthanasia will become as common in many countries as forced abortion is now in China. Some people are not opposed to this.

Why? Because the fear of overpopulation is, in a very real sense, a refusal to rely on God's providence. There has never been any serious proof that human beings have overpopulated the planet or are even capable of doing so. There have been many theories of world overpopulation, but none of the predictions based on those theories have ever come true. Not one.

Which goes to show that this belief in overpopulation is ultimately not based on a scientific understanding of the world. Science is based on hypothesis validation. In science, you construct an hypothesis, you test it in the real world. If the real-world results match the results your hypothesis predicted, then it is at least possible, though not certain, that your hypothesis is correct. However, if the real world results don't match
your hypothetical results, then your hypothesis is infallibly wrong and you have to start all over again.

Thomas Malthus's 1798 work on the subject was the first modern overpopulation warning, even including a mathematical model. His prediction of overpopulation crises, and the prediction of every person who has attempted to update his hypothesis, has been wrong.

Two hundred years of failure would seem to indicate a very basic flaw in the hypothesis of overpopulation. Yet the belief persists, despite the lack of validation. That is evidence of faith on a grand scale, but it is not faith in the divine providence of God. It is faith in the hypothesis that there is no divine providence, there is no God.

If anything is demonstrated by these failures, it is precisely this: the hypothesis that denies divine providence, and thereby implicitly denies God's existence, is wrong. Which is why some people hope to God you pay attention to the circus in Alabama, and ignore the historic events in Georgia.

No comments: