Brazilian Presidential Candidate “Personally Against Abortion”, But In Favour

Brazilian Health Issue

One never ceases to be amazed at the absence of personal dignity of a modern politician, particularly when elections loom and the absence of every scruple in order to be elected becomes most evident.

Last in the long list of shameless politicians is Dilma Rousseff, the probable winner of the next Brazilian presidential election, to be held in January. The lady is the candidate of the Labour party, which supports abortion and in the last weeks the pressure of pro-life groups has evidently become uncomfortable.
Faced with the possibility of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Ms Rousseff informs us that she is, er, a Catholic and “personally opposed” to abortion. Except that, well, she isn’t.

Apart from the fact that her party is in favour of legalised genocide (currently still substantially banned in a strongly pro-life country) and she wasn’t on record with any opposition to this, the way the lady talks says a lot about the way she thinks.
Abortion is “violence against the woman”, she says, and one is surprised at the fact that one life is killed, but the lady is so worried at the violence the woman who has consented to kill him has suffered. If the peasant kills the kittens because he doesn’t want the nuisance around he at least doesn’t start talking about how violent the experience was to him; and we are not talking of kittens here but of human lives.

Not content with this, the lady resorts to the usual abortionist vocabulary: abortion is a “health issue” and if this is the mentality, one supposed that euthanasia is a health issue, too. She also “values life”, a beautiful soundbites in Cameron style. Apart from the fact that even Stalin wouldn’t have had any problem in agreeing with her, the measure of how much you “value” something is what you are ready to do to protect it. You can’t say to the child you just killed that “you valued his life so much”; it just doesn’t square.

Ms. Rousseff also says that women “have to be cared for”, but this is again too generic and doesn’t say anything about whether this care also includes the death of the child.

There’s a chilling Obama-mentality here: “Dear child, I value your life so much and I personally would be against killing you; but be informed that you are now a health issue and therefore you’ll have to die. Thanks for your understanding in this difficult circumstance. We’ll celebrate your life that, though short, has given so much joy to all of us”.

I do not mean here that the woman must say what she doesn’t think. Hey, if she an abortionist third-worldist anti-American proto-commie, this is her choice. But in a democracy one should say what he stands for and the electorate should decide on the basis of his values. What Ms. Rousseff does is wanting to have her cake and eat it and this is just not right.

Mundabor

Posted on October 1, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Catholic, Blair style, huh!

  2. So aptly expressed.

  3. I hope the Catholic bishops throw the excommunciation card, but I’m not holding my breath. Brazil contains the largest number of (nominal) Catholics in the world, but is quickly becoming Protestant. Evangelical groups are spreading like wildfire. The bishops do not teach the Faith.

    • Fully agree, Shane.
      It is a shame that a country that continues to be largely religious (for example, with widespread opposition to abortion) should have a Church hierarchy disappointing them to the point of looking elsewhere. Not saying that it’s right of course, but it gives the scale of the hierarchy’s betrayal.

      M

%d bloggers like this: