Hitchens, jihadists, and abortion
This Tuesday (7th November) me and my girlfriend had the nerdiest date ever. We went to see Peter Hitchens discuss Western attitudes to Russia. This event was hosted at Darwin College by the Cambridge University Russian Society (website here). It was an interesting conversation. I must say that without Peter Hitchens it is possible that me and my now-girlfriend (Chocolate Cosmos, who also got me into blogging) never would have got to know each other and become a couple. We “met” virtually, via email, and we first interested one another when we mentioned in our introductions that we knew of Mr Hitchens. “Hey, this girl is just as nerdy - I mean, as intellectual - as I am”, I must have thought. An email correspondence eventually gave way to meeting up in real life and romance bloomed. Me and her considered telling Hitchens at Darwin College that he was our love guru, potentially responsible for our relationship. When the discussion ended, a few people congregated to the front of the room to talk with the man; thinking that he had enough bother as it was, and being a bit shy, me and my girlfriend departed. Maybe we'll tell him some other time.
The Russian Society has let me know that footage of this event was recorded and will be put online in the near future. After this happens, I'll link to it on this blog.
I dislike the frequent recent use of the word “brainwashed”. I am hearing it very often being used to describe the jihadists who have lately been causing death and destruction across America, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and much of the rest of the world. I understand that ordinary people who simply cannot comprehend how fellow human beings could do such things are looking for explanations, but “brainwashed” implies a lack of free will on the part of the jihadist, as if the poor dear has been hypnotised! It relieves them of their guilt. However, I must admit that there might be some truth in the “brainwashing” hypothesis. Many of the murders in the West publicised as “terrorist attacks” over the last few years were perpetrated by petty criminals with drug habits, legal and illegal, as has been documented by the above-mentioned Peter Hitchens. If their drug use rendered them in some way mentally ill, then it may rightly be said that they are not 100% responsible for their actions. Although, in the case of illegal drug use, the choice was theirs to go down that dangerous path...
Quite a few women believe, and act on this belief, that pregnancies should be aborted when the baby is proven to be disabled, or even in situations where the baby will have to be put up for adoption once it is born. These people are pretending that the abortion will be for the child's own good, and not for their own convenience. Their idea makes no moral sense. According to the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), we must ask ourselves this, “would I rather have been aborted than disabled or adopted?”, and then consider what to do for the child. I wonder how many would genuinely favour abortion? Ask a person with Down's syndrome, “wouldn't you rather have been aborted?” and hear their reply. “Pro-choicers” make cheap excuses for their own selfishness.