Friend,
If you didn’t see Jesse Watters interviewing Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed on Fox News last night, you missed a revealing moment that cuts beneath the usual policy debate to something more fundamental.
El-Sayed showed himself to be precisely what Michigan does not need in elected office. Beyond exposing a shallow grasp of basic economics, he made a comparison so medically and morally confused that it lays bare the deeper problem with where certain ideological currents in our politics have arrived.
In an exchange about so-called “gender change” surgery, Watters asked El-Sayed whether he supported allowing a doctor to surgically remove a young boy's male anatomy. El-Sayed's response was not a defense of children. It was a deflection: "Are you circumcised?"
Watters couldn't believe what he was hearing. His reply, "circumcision is different than castration," expressed what most reasonable people watching already knew.
He is right. And the distinction matters enormously.
El-Sayed, a physician with an M.D. from Columbia University, placed a minor, medically routine procedure that does nothing to alter the function of the human body on the same moral and clinical level as a surgery that permanently destroys a child's capacity to father children.
Circumcision is not castration. One has thousands of years of medical and cultural precedent; the other is an irreversible alteration of a healthy body belonging to a child who has no say in the matter and no ability to reclaim what has been taken once it is gone.
This is not a difference of medical opinion, but a failure of basic moral reasoning. And it reveals something about where a particular ideology has arrived: a place where the healthy bodies of children are treated as problems awaiting correction.
People who reason this way have disqualified themselves from public trust.
The Watters interview is emblematic of where we stand as a society and of where we must hold the line. Not merely on the political question of who wins in November, but on something prior to politics: the recognition that children are not experiments and that no movement's preferred conclusions change what every serious moral tradition has always understood about the protection of the young.
In other words, natural law does not require a theology degree to understand.
There are economic and policy reasons aplenty to reject Abdul El-Sayed's candidacy. But what last night's interview made plain is that the deepest stakes in elections like this one are not economic. They concern what we believe about the human person and whether the people we send to govern us are willing to protect children even when an ideology tells them not to.
Michigan voters, the ball is in your court.
Go forward bravely,
No comments:
Post a Comment