If you don’t know the Youtube channel of Thomas Schwenke, today is a good day to put an end to this deficiency in your life. I have seen several videos of this guy, no one that wasn’t absolutely brilliant.
This one is no exception. It is, as they say, “science”.
I wonder how anybody, after seeing this or any other similar educational video, can decide that life does not begin at conception. There really is no escape.
Life **does** begin at conception. There is no other possibility. It’s the way it is.
If you think rabid pro-death feminists are like Nazis, you can change your mind now: they are much worse.
The Twitter exchange in the link provided shows for this woman the defence of an unborn baby is on the same plane as the defence of bacteria: if you are against abortion, you must be against antibiotics. An abortion kills one living being, antibiotics kill a vast number of them.
It chills your blood.
Even Dr Goebbels, in his famous – and authentic – diaries, shows himself conscious of the loss of human lives caused by the Holocaust, describing it as something “you’ve got to do”. As monsters go, you’d think Goebbels and Himmler are pretty much at the top.
Still,a I can’t imagine the Himmler and Goebbels of this world simply equating, in public, a human life to bacteria.
The evidence of that is that the German people were lulled for years with documentaries about the happy life deported Jews were living as, say, farmers in the Ucraine, which would never have happened in the case of the equation Jews=bacteria.
Not here: this satanical Marcotte female really makes the argument.
May she repent and heaven forgiven her before it’s too late. Someway, I think the odds aren’t very good.
“One in three women will have an abortion by the time they’re 45, and yet we’re treating this like it’s some extreme procedure, when it can be a lot safer than even having your wisdom teeth removed, and is almost just as common,” said Kari Ross, who is the spokeswoman for the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF).
I read this here.
Let me rephrase it.
“One in three European Jews will have a death by Holocaust by 1945, and yet we're treating the Final Solution like it's some extreme procedure, when it can be a lot safer than having your wisdom teeth removed, and is almost just as common”.
To them, an abortion is something harmless just because it happens millions of times.
I doubt even Dr Goebbels would show such lack of humanity.
The Nazis are among us.
The former head of a pro-abortion group arranges payment with a man to have sex with the latter’s 12-years old daughters. The abortionist travels to meet the girl, and is arrested as the entire arrangement was a police trap.
It is interesting to note that, as the representative of a pro-life group says,
“Sexual predators who impregnate underage girls rely on cooperative abortion clinics to cover up their crimes”.
Makes sense, doesn’t it? Abortionists help Planned Genocide to make money, Planned Genocide helps them when they get in trouble.
Another pro-life group goes as far as to say:
“Nobody should be surprised that people who advocate the murder of children would be involved in the sexual abuse of children.”
which, as a statement, truly does make a lot of sense too.
A last aspect I would like to notice:
what would have happened if the man caught by the police had been a priest?
Interesting article from Instapundit.
It points out to the fact that in the same way as abortionists tend to, well, abort, environmentalist with their fanatical fear for the Earth tend to make fewer children too (egotism, of course; the eternal adolescence typical of the breed; the desire to be an anorak forever).
Meanwhile, conservative Catholics (and conservatives, in general) reproduce like it’s going out of fashion. Give it one or two generations, and the results will not be late in showing up.
I liked very much the reference that Gore in 2000 (not 2004, of course; in 2004 Bush run against Kerry) lost because of the children aborted in Florida. Tragic for the murdered children of course, but ruthlessly true; apart for the fact of course that if the Florida democrats had been less abortionists in some measure, they would have been, unavoidably, less Democratic in pretty much the same measure.
Incidentally, this reminds me of the pacifist nutcases in the Eighties’ Italy, seriously (or so it might seem) telling you that it didn’t make sense to make children in a world destined to be destroyed in a nuclear catastrophe. Whereas, apart from the obvious madness of the argument, no one ever explained to me why it would be better not to be born than to be born and die in a nuclear war.
One was reminded of the vegetarian’s mantra: I love cows so much, that I don’t want them to be born.
And in fact, the clear resurgence of pro-lifers in the United States – particularly evident in the new generations – might be the result of the refusal of the abortionists to generate little abortionists, preferring to murder them instead.
As the author of the article very funnily observes,
Childlessness is inherited. If your parents don’t have kids, you won’t either.
From the Blog The Divine Life, an interesting post about that tragic word, “late-term abortion”.
Besides being very instructive about the scale of ruthlessness the “liberated” Western society has brought on us, it makes clear the intrinsic hypocrisy of the entire so-called “pro-choice” edifice.
An abortion is either a murder, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, there should be no reason whatsoever why those who don’t consider abortion killing shouldn’t practice it any time before birth or – come to that and with the same thinking – actually during birth too. If it is, then it shouldn’t be practiced and it should be banned altogether, period.
This idea that an abortion would be morally acceptable for, say, 20 weeks but would then become morally questionable starting from day X is a logical and ethical absurdity. Also hypocritical is the behaviour of those institutions which practice abortions only in certain circumstances after the – arbitrarily decided – day X whilst leaving the circumstances completely under the control of the mother. Actually, when a mother decides that she wants to kill her baby it is difficult to tell her that she was morally authorised to do so until last Tuesday but, alas, at midnight all this ceased to apply.
The arguments just don’t have any logic. The argument that one would procure an abortion only after a certain day is totally devoid of logic and the argument that one would procure it only if there are reasons every mother could claim for herself (“emotional distress”, say) is illogical and hypocritical at the same time.
Abortion is murder. What is so difficult in that……
Absolutely beautiful video posted on the Creative Minority Report website.
Its importance is more than merely “local” (referred to the Mid-Term Election in November) and extend to the attitude every Catholic should have when he approaches the ballot box. The separation of Christian values and voting decisions has brought the West to the point we are today and the pendulum must now start to swing in the other direction. It is will be a slow process, but in time it will take momentum and will give us in the West more Christian societies.
Even if you don’t live in the US, please spread the word and forward this video.
I came across this interesting Elizabeth Scalia’s article on “First Things” (an interreligious pro-life internet site) illustrating some points in a forceful way.
I would see the most relevant as follows:
1) The refusal of radicalism (understood as blind fanaticism) and the honest admission that in this some Christians are not entirely free of fault. Thankfully, we Catholics have the Tradition to guide us and to keep us away from fanatical fringe positions under the excuse of a bible quotation or two, taken out of the context.
2) The fact that many of the fanatics believing in some golden calf (the environment, say, or the so-called “right to choose”) end up organising themselves, thinking and acting as if they were one of the very religious organisations they condemn.
3) The appalling self-serving cynicism of a Weltanschauung by which what is convenient becomes the only criterium for the decision about a right to kill an innocent life and this is admitted candidly and without any shame. On this third and in my eyes most important point, the author Elisabeth Scalia quotes from Antonia Senior writing – unsurprisingly – in the London’s “Times”. Please read her words attentively:
“I could think of one cause I would stake my life on: a woman’s right to be educated, to have a life beyond the home and to be allowed by law and custom to order her own life as she chooses. And that includes complete control over her own fertility. […] Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life”.
There is no effort to wear a mask here: the ability to “order her own life as she chooses” is the rationale of the abortion and every other consideration is – as it is honestly admitted – a “convenient lie that we on the on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about taking a life”.
You may now ask: how can it be that the willful suppression of an innocent life is fully recognised, but no consequences drawn? Simply in this way: that what is not convenient for the mother ceases to have status and dignity of a human life. To put it again in the words of Ms Senior,
“That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing miracle of life. In a resentful womb it is not a life, but a foetus — and thus killable”.
This is the most honest explanation I have ever read from so-called “pro choice” activists and at the same time the most chillingly inhuman: if it doesn’t suit the mother, the very same foetus loses any right to be called a life.
One doesn’t know what is more appalling: the cruel consequences of such a thinking or the ability to fully recognise its cruelty and still give it one’s full assent.