I do not entirely agree with Mr Biden's reiterated enthusiasm for killing unborn Jewish babies.
It is also true that I also do not entirely agree with Mr Biden's equal enthusiasm for killing Gentile, Black, White, Male, Female, Disabled, Abled, Large or Small unborn babies of any racial or social provenance.
But today is Holocaust Memorial Day, when our cultural Masters request and require that we shall (at least principally) think, speak, and write about the killing of Jewish humans.
That's what I'm doing.
So that is why I am, at this moment, only blogging about the killing of unborn Jewish babies. I have often written about the iniquity of killing any preborn humans at all, without any distinction. Deo volente, I shall so write again. Possibly, I might select Bastille Day to think particularly about the killing of unborn French humans; and Thanksgiving Day to meditate upon the holocaust of American babies.
Is there an 'official' "Black Lives Matter Day"? There would be scope there, too.
But on this one particular day, Holocaust Memorial Day, at this precise moment, in order to show my obsequium civicum towards the commands of the Zeitgeist, I am writing only about and against the killing of Jewish babies. And, as you will by now have grasped, I am very strongly against it.
One other preliminary: I would never suggest that Biden and his associates are keener on killing Jewish babies than they are on killing Gentile babies. I am simply willing to assume that, among the large numbers of abortions which are performed annually in the US of A, Jewish foetuses are not absent. (If they were absent, accusations would be made that Jewish women were being "excluded from Heath Care and from Reproductive Rights".)
Right. I hope everybody has got all that straight.
Another clarification: terminology.
I gather that in the modern Death Industry, because it is medically important to extract every fragment of a Jewish girl who has been pulled into pieces in the womb, together with her placenta etc. (in order to avoid sepsis), the cognoscenti nowadays like to refer to "the Product of Conception". So they piece the dismembered child together on the slab, like a three-dimensional jigsaw, to make sure they've got every tiny bit of "the POC" out of the adhuc mother. If anybody dislikes my use of the word 'Baby' in what has preceded or in what now follows, it is absolutely completely fine by me if you substitute "POC" for the B-word. For these purposes, I am a philological libertarian! Let's not squabble about mere words!
Quite a lot of people are uneasy about the killing of Jewish babies, but they are unwilling to be quite as absolutist as I am. I sympathise with this approach, but I am unable to agree with it. This is because I am a Catholic priest, constrained and required by the Church to take an absolutist view against the killing of Jews, any Jews, all Jews, big Jews, little Jews, born Jews and unborn Jews. I know this is Rigid and Intolerant, but that is who I am, what I am, and where I am. I apologise for my awkwardness, but ....
There are two common ethical dogmas which ... I confess ... I regard as so monstrously horrible that I am unwilling to give them further consideration:
(1) Killing Jews is acceptable as long as proportionate numbers of similarly circumstanced Gentiles are also being killed; and
(2) Killing Jews out of anti-Jewish prejudice is tremendously wrong, but to kill them for other reasons (ex. gr. Population Control; Sexual Emancipation ...) is morally acceptable, or even to be applauded.
And there are, of course, thoughtful people who might claim essentially to agree with me, but argue as follows: "In the modern secular state, one sometimes needs to do a careful audit of conflicting ethical considerations. If politician X advocates the killing of Jewish babies or adults, but simultaneously also advocates some other very highly desirable outcomes, such as preserving rain-forests or encouraging sodomy, one may be justified in casting one's vote for the Jew-killer so as to secure the sodomy and the rain-forests.".
I have been familiar with something like this type of argument since my childhood. Back in the 1940s, it was very common to hear Englishmen ... even those who had fought against Nazism in the War ... comfortably praising Herr Hitler because "at least he built some fine roads". (Mussolini, I seem to recall, "made the trains run on time".)
I suppose, in less technical terms, this is what decent ordinary people might call "voting for X as the lesser of the two evils".
But the Church's teachings on the sacredness of all human life as one of her chief ethical principles, and on the intrinsic evil of abortion, have been reiterated, through two millennia and especially in and since Vatican II, with such Magisterial force and decision that I am completely unable to countenance the idea that Jew-killing might ever, in any conceivable circumstances, be envisaged, or encouraged via the ballot-box, by anybody who stands in or near the Catholic Tradition. Additionally, such an approach shades dangerously and unacceptably into the condemned ethical proposition that an end (however good) can justify an inherently evil means.
One final confession of my own weaknesses. A picture which sticks in my mind is of Ukrainian Jews, naked, patient, queuing up to enter a pit; a waiting SS guard with a submachine gun, smoking a cigarette. It is true that I do have a personal and visceral detestation of the killing of Jews, and I apologise if this has coloured my modes of expression. But I am convinced that what I have written above has a prescriptive and ineluctable force on those whose minds are still open to reason, and who have not lost every last snatch of humanity.
Killing ... any ... Jews ... is ... always ... wrong.