Daily Archives: April 2, 2016
I was shocked, shocked at reading the criticism of Trump (he deserves other criticism, but this is for another post) for suggesting a woman who aborts her baby should be punished.
I do not remember one day of my life in which there was, in Italy, prohibition of abortion without a criminal sanction for the woman who murders her own baby. Yes, murders her own baby. Let’s say things as they are here.
The murderer of the baby is, unquestionably, her own mother. The abortionist doctor is merely the executioner. He is like a hit man. He is, in fact, literally, a hit man in a white robe. He does not know the child or his mother. He does not have any emotional connection with either. He kills on behalf of another, in order to comply with another’s desire, to have which executed the other party is ready to pay him (or her).
How there should be a planet, somewhere in the Milky Way, where the idea that murder should be punished is seen as cruel or against women is beyond me. Nor do I care that some US states apparently came, even before Roe vs Wade, to the strange conclusion that the mother is the victim, and the abortionist the only party culpable. This is pure insanity. It is like saying that Don Michael Corleone is innocent of the assassination of Fredo, and Al Neri is the only one who should be punished.
You want someone dead. You give another the task to have him killed. You, Sir (or Ma’am), are a murderer.
Nor can arguments be used which, in one way or another, relate to the difficult situation of the mother (provided it is a difficult one: the mother could be wealthy and in excellent health, and even married, which some women still are when they make children). Difficult situations can morally only be considered as extenuating circumstances; they can diminish the culpability of the woman in front of both the Lord and her earthly judge. But never, never should they be used as an excuse to erase the very act of a criminal offence that the killing of one’s own baby must necessarily be!
If a mother asks her lover to kill her twelve days old son, should we say that she is not guilty of murder? How on earth there can be a window of opportunity in which the murder of one’s own son allows her to escape a criminal offence, whilst this window closes after the child is born? In what is the dignity of the unborn baby, and his reality as an immortal soul, less worthy of criminal protection?
Or let us make another comparison.
Many people are in favour of decriminalising the use of heavy drugs (see under: “oh so poor victim”), in order to only punish the drug dealer. The arguments in favour of the situation are often heard, but they very seldom lead to legislation in this sense. Why? Because of this simple reason: that it is repugnant to the average sound man to think that the gravity of the act of taking hard drugs should remain not only unpunished, but not considered a criminal offence in the first place. If this is true for the taking of drugs, how much more should it be so for the killing of babies!
It goes on:
Woman discovers that she is pregnant. The social structures around her encourage her to see herself as (don’t make me laugh) the victim. Why shouldn’t she try to do all she can to get rid of what causes her to be a victim? What would refrain her, the poor victim, from doing all she can to find the abortionist doctor? Why should she not complain if she cannot find an abortionist, and demand that another person be legally allowed to free her from a situation in which she is the victim? How can we, in fact, even think of asking that abortion be prohibited also in case of rape, if we are ready to think in the first place that the existence of a victim allows the victim to not be culpable if she has her own baby killed?
Really, it’s too absurd for words. Most of all, it undermines the very basic of pro-life thinking: that life is sacred, and no one has the right to think he/she is in any way, shape or form exempt from the moral (and, necessarily, criminal) crime of murder if he/she kills an innocent life.
Let’s get back to the basics here. Life is a simple thing. Truth is a simple thing. There’s is no way you can “victim-ise” a mother away from her murder.
Lastly, there are the “convenience” apostles: “oh, but we must do this, in order to try to get abortion banned from the window!”
It does not work that way.
Laws follow from moral systems of rules, and it is exactly this underlying morality that keeps the laws alive, or enforced, or both. If we want to change the legislation, we must change the morality of the voters. People must be said – and must in time believe – that abortion is murder, and the only logical consequence of this is that the woman who aborts is the murderer of her own baby. That’s it. The murderer of her own baby, in her own womb. One of the most atrocious behaviours conceivable to man when I was a child has now become… being a victim?
Let us go on:
Let us imagine that such a law is passed: the mother is the victim, the abortionist paid by her is the bogeyman. How can this even work? Is here the abortionist doctor, or is he not, trying to help a victim in the way she asks him to help her? How could a judge even say: “dear doctor, I am fully sympathetic of the plight of your client; I really see the drama in front of her; but you, who have done what the victim asked you to do to help her, will have to spend the next fifteen years in jail”?. The doctors would be seen not as evil, but as helpers. Such a law would not live long. It is absurd.
We must recover the very consciousness of the atrociousness of every abortion. We cannot do this is we begin to pussyfoot around the brutal reality of the murder, instigated by the mother of the victim, which takes place. You can’t whitewash a murderer more than you could whitewash Michael Corleone. Things must be said, and they must be said in all the horrible reality of what can be, morally, nothing but the murder of a child out of the will of her own mother.
(And please don’t call the man in the equation, now. The decision is the mother’s alone. The mother can’t call herself out. I wish a woman could be forced to have a baby because the father wants so, and give him 20 years if he does not want so. Can’t even imagine the screaming of the feminazis).
The victim is the baby. The mother is his murderer. If she did not want the child, she should have been able to keep her legs shut. Children aren’t brought by the stork.
And please let us stop, as we are there, with this idea that a pregnancy be such a devastating thing for a woman. Women are made to be, one day, pregnant. They are meant to be, one day, pregnant. Every little girl knows that. Every little girl will tell you how many babies she will have. Before she knows how children are made, she knows she will have them. She perfectly well knows that this is a logical part of her life plan. Obviously, not all women will have babies. But this does not change the brutal truth of the fact: that every woman knows, from a very tender age, that having babies is a very important part of what defines her as a female.
The girl who is terrified at the idea of having a baby is not terrified of the pregnancy. She has been thinking about that since she was five. She is terrified of the pregnancy at a moment not of her choosing!
Though luck, say I. Your baby will not die because you think “the time is not right”. See above, under “legs shut”.
The past generations knew all this. Most little girl know, in a girlish way, all this.
Why moderns adults forget these simple facts of life is truly beyond me.