Without Natural Affection

If you are a socon, tradcon, paleocon, or maybe even a neocon you are most likely familiar with the idea of “natural law.”  At one point in time most United States citizens were familiar with this concept, as it is enshrined within the Declaration of Independence when the founders gave natural law as the justification for rebellion against British rule.

The founders adopted the idea of natural law from John Locke (if you haven’t read his two treatises then you really should put that on the “to do” list), while Lock borrowed the concept from the Apostle Paul.  In Romans chapter 1 Paul addresses, at length, the spiritual decline and fall of the gentile world.  He begins by showing how human pride led the gentiles to reject the knowledge of God, which resulted in their departure from the natural order.  Paul emphasizes that homosexuality is against nature, and further describes the crimes of the gentiles as being a result of being “without natural affection.”

Now what exactly does it mean to be “without natural affection”?  Take the sad case of Crystal Rusaw, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/09/3-kids-found-wandering-on-highway-after-mom-leaves-them-home-alone/#ixzz23280qTHN?test=latestnews , who left her small children alone and in dangerous circumstances in order to go to her neighbor’s house for a “booty call”.  We understand that it is natural for women to make the welfare and safety of their children the paramount concern of their lives.  We expect this to be so, and when we see a case like this one we are (rightfully) repulsed.  But is Ms. Rusaw really all that exceptional in our culture?

Each year the women of the United States abort over one million unborn children…. Is Ms. Rusaw’s crime worse than the women who do this?  If so, why?  Each woman who chooses to kill her unborn baby must harden her heart to the results of her choice.  How many times must a woman make a conscious decision to kill her own child before her psyche changes to something previously unrecognizable?

Leave abortion out of it however, and take a look around your community at the various “day care” centers.  How many of them advertise that they are for children “six weeks and up”?  A little research revealed that in my home state infants as young as six weeks may be placed in day care centers all day.  The state requires only one caregiver per six infants.  This means that various mothers drop their six week old infants off with a stranger who is also looking after five other infants, none of whom are her own.  Is this natural affection?  Is this in the “best interest of the child”?

The women of western civilization like to boast “you’ve come a long way, baby” and “we can have it all.”  The “all” they have seems to be a job, which from all appearances the majority of them hate, crushing student loan/credit card/car note/house note debt, failing marriages and abandoned children, all of it pursued by women who pridefully believed that they should be the same as men in every area.  Just as Paul predicted, these women have lost the affection they are naturally endowed with, and as a result are capable of any crime.  We may, as a culture, choose to ignore natural law, but if we violate its rules we will still pay the price.  Man never truly “breaks” the law of God, he merely breaks himself in rebellion against it.



Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “Without Natural Affection

  1. Ezra

    Thanks for this; it is enlightening. I always read that scripture and instantly thought of sexual sin alone; I never thought of further application of “without natural affection” especially as it pertains to women, and especially outside of sexual sin.

    I especially like how you are bold enough to speak about the sadness of mothers placing their not-yet-two-month-old, completely dependent infants in daycares (I call them day orphanages, like Dr. Laura, though I don’t agree with all her beliefs). As a child care provider (nanny – a disgusting term) for over twenty years, I see the difference in children who have never had their mother as primary caregiver. It’s sad.

    I’m about to go back to work for my current family; their baby will only be two months old. This baby will not understand why Mama is suddenly gone; why suddenly there is no breast, but just a stranger that smells very different, with a bottle instead. It makes me sad. I’d never nanny again if it meant that mothers would choose mother hood over their “life-changing” careers. I know there are some women who absolutely must work some lackluster job just to make the bills, due to poor choices, abandonment or being poor widows. But this is not what you are talking about. You are talking about women who deliberately CHOOSE to abandon their infants.

    Thanks again!

  2. sunshinemary

    How many of them advertise that they are for children “six weeks and up”?

    A church across the street from the school where I used to teach (in a very low-income district) offered daycare beginning at two weeks. Ironic that the daycare was located in a church. Leaving a two-week old infant…I don’t know, but it made me think of those studies they’ve done on children who were raised from infancy in orphanages and were not sufficiently nurtured. The children had all kinds of emotional and cognitive deficits. I used to think, “Those babies will be over here in five years on my caseload” (I worked in Special Ed).

  3. “Natural Law” is whatever the majority bellyfeels is right. Back in sparta, having a 12-year-old male lover was natural law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s