Personal Peace and Affluence Determines Whether an Unborn Baby Lives or Dies
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
— From Percy Shelley’s “Ozymandias”
If you’ve ever wondered why some people do horrible things in the name of some higher calling, all you must do is pay attention to the statements of people who are regarded as something in our society. Below is an ominous declaration by someone of some notoriety in a profession that feeds moral trip to millions. Her declaration is loved by nearly 70,000 people. Wonder no more.
Pro-abortion actress Jameela Jamil: ‘My life is more important to me than an unborn fetus.’ What if you consider your life to be more important than a three-day-old baby, a three-month-old baby, a three-year-old baby? Would it be OK for you to kill him or her?
The German Motherland is more important than Jews. Picking cotton is more important than black people. You name what’s “more important,” and you get some idea of how the mass killings of the 20th century – Darwin’s century – happened.
In May 2019, Jamil said she had an abortion earlier in her life:
I had an abortion when I was young, and it was the best decision I have ever made. Both for me, and for the baby I didn’t want, and wasn’t ready for, emotionally, psychologically and financially. So many children will end up in foster homes. So many lives ruined. So very cruel. (May 16, 2019 via Twitter).
In an interview with Harper’s Bazaar magazine, she said the following:
People have abortions, sometimes a woman just wants her liberty, and we have to normalize that it’s okay just to make that choice for yourself, because your life is as important as a newborn life that doesn’t even exist yet.
Like the Greek philosopher Epicurus (c. 341–271 B.C.), modern-day secularists don’t want “a God who can derail their plans and mess up their day. Like Epicurus, today’s important classes don’t want a God “who is actively involved in the affairs of this world and who judges us in the next.” To believe in such a God “is a surefire way to destroy one’s personal peace and happiness.”1
Francis A. Schaeffer popularized the phrase “personal peace and affluence in his 1976 book and film series How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (246).
Gradually, that which had become the basic thought form of modern people became the almost totally accepted viewpoint, an almost monolithic consensus. And as it came to the majority of people through art, music, drama, theology, and the mass media, values died. As the more Christian-dominated consensus weakened, the majority of people adopted two impoverished values: personal peace and affluence.
Personal peace means just to be let alone, not to be troubled by the troubles of other people, whether across the world or across the city – to live one’s life with minimal possibilities of being personally disturbed. Personal peace means wanting to have my personal life pattern undisturbed in my lifetime, regardless of what the result will be in the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren. Affluence means an overwhelming and increasing prosperity – a life made up of things, things, and more things – a success judged by an ever higher level of material abundance.
There is a reason why we are at this stage in the massive collapse of Western Civilization. The seeds of destruction were planted in the name of science with the promise of intellectual and moral freedom:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s [thought processes]. But if their thoughts—i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident would be able to give correct account of all the other accidents.2
We’re accidents of evolutionary change. Who’s to say that one accident can’t kill another accident?