First of all, let me say that **in general** I am highly suspicious of the number of children allegedly conceived by rape. This does not, my dear female reader, concern *your own* rape, and I am sure your rape was entirely authentic and an extremely traumatic experience. I refer, though, to the fact that by reading around one has the impression rape is something that in the US happens all the time, as a matter of course; particularly if we think that after all is said and… done to conceive a baby is never an automatic matter, as millions of couples will testify.
Having said that, *some* babies are (must be; it is a statistic certainty) conceived through rape.
Here is where one of those phenomena start which I cannot but call inconceivably stupid, and a worrying sign of the inability of our generation to simply think logically.
To be an abortionist or pro-life can never be a matter of degrees.You either think an unborn child should not be killed, or you think his life is disposable. Tertium non datur.
If one thinks the life of the unborn baby must be protected, then this must perforce be valid for every life, as there are no unborn babies who are less innocent than others.
If one thinks the baby can be aborted in certain circumstances, then one is simply an abortionist, and the only difference with the mainstream “pro-choice” abortionist is that he is in favour of choice in a more limited set of circumstances.
If you want to listen to pro-lifers, listen to real ones, like this pro-life activist conceived in rape and born notwithstanding two botched back-alley abortion attempts. She wouldn’t have had any chance in the world of so-called pro-lifer Ann Coulter, and would have had her life terminated with the seldom failing procedures of the professional Nazi butcher of Planner Parenthood. She lived, though, because to abort her was a criminal offence, rape or no rape.
Therefore, Ann Coulter – who has launched herself in a rather violent tirade against coherent, if perhaps not entirely articulated, pro-lifers like Richard Mourdoch – simply does not get what pro-life means. She is clearly pro-choice, with the only qualification that the choice whether to kill an innocent unborn baby must in her opinion be given only in case of rape.
This position is, besides being contrary to logic, not very intelligent also from a practical point of view.
If abortion were one day to be banned allowing for the rape exception, we would see an explosion of alleged “rapes” like humanity has never seen in its history; you would see girls denouncing their boyfriend of rape out of sheer selfish desperation if forced to a DNA probe, or simply claiming they have been raped by a stranger after a night in the disco if not. In a country which does not set extremely hard evidence requirements to the accusation of rape (as it was in Italy last time I looked, with the necessity of a medical report from a doctor documenting clear signs of sexual violence) this game could be played if not by anyone, certainly by anyone without scruples or desperate enough to think she has the moral right to put another man’s liberty and reputation in danger.
Let me say it once again: you either are pro-life, or you are pro-choice. If you think a baby can be aborted because he happens to have been conceived by rape, then you are most certainly pro-choice. Nor can it be said – as some Protestants might say out of sheer ignorance – that the Church allows for abortion in case of impending danger for the mother’s life. This is simply not the case, and those poorly instructed will have to inform themselves better.
Ann Coulter is that kind of conservative who just doesn’t get the profoundly Christian roots of conservative values: this is why her conservatism does not extend to sodomites, and why she is in favour of killing babies.
We don’t need this kind of conservatism, because besides being immoral it is logically incoherent and therefore, in the end, self-defeating. True conservatism must come from a coherent, all-encompassing view of life that is inspired by a consistent set of values. These values are the values Christ and His Church gave us. There is no escape, and we can see from this episode how illusory it is to think that one can tailor one’s views to the fashions of the time.
Beware of the false conservatives. They are the bearer of a self-defeating ideology that does not do much less to damn your soul than the mindset of the liberals.
An old letter has resurfaced, in which the worst first lady ever takes a stance on child killing that would make Heinrich Himmler shiver.
You can read the letter here. Please note the woman (“lady” is, I am afraid, too much) does not even accepts the use of the words “partial birth”, which she evidently considers too politically incorrect as it reminds one that someone is being born, and there is a life at stake. Birth is clearly not a worry here; “legitimate medical procedure” is the expression of choice. With this reasoning, if the law allowed for old people to be smashed to trees like new-born kittens, this would be a “legitimate medical procedure” to her.
As the concept of “birth” must be kept away from the reader’s mind, the woman prefers to use the words “so-called partial birth abortion”. Not really a birth, then. An unwanted excrescence, more like.
I think “late term abortion” is the expression she is looking for. Funny, that. I can imagine people like her 1) advocating the right for the mother to kill the baby in the first, say, four weeks after birth and 2) calling it “very late term abortion”. The logic is exactly the same.
I wonder if even Nazis went so far as to perform abortion up to the very point of birth. Perhaps yes, perhaps not. It certainly stretches things even for your average Nazi doctor.
Also, it is true that horrible experiments were conducted by Nazi doctors in extermination camps and elsewhere, but it is time to notice all this was made on the sly, without telling the German population.
Michelle Obama does not seem to have this problem. To her, a child can be butchered when half come to light (actually, as far as I know even when come to light altogether; they just leave the baby to die of cold, and still call it “late term abortion”) and this is something that can be said very openly and written in promotional literature, taking pride in the matter.
Seriously, Hitler can’t hold a candle to this woman.
If you ask me, it seems a phenomenon is becoming increasingly more evident in the United States, and will one day make its appearance on European shores: the self-abortion of so-called pro-choice positions.
I would love to say to you that the growing opposition to abortion among younger voters in the US (I have blogged about this in the past, but you only need to google around a bit to be sure of this) is the result of the courageous work of the Church hierarchy to support Christian values; but I am afraid the contribution has not been near as vocal as it should have been, at least until the very last years.
In my eyes, what is happening is something more brutally simple: pro-choice supporters have simply aborted the next generation of potential pro-choice supporters. Whilst there will always be the one or other saying he is in favour of others killing their babies whilst not killing their own, a short observation of the reality around us persuades pro-choice supporters tend to practice what they preach; you can put it in the other way, and reflect the often spread legend of the good observant Catholic girl as beneficiary of the abortion laws doesn’t really pass the test of reality.
Rather, it would appear for a couple of decades a bigger number of children was born in pro-life households than in so-called pro-choice ones. Let these babies reach voting age and look at support for pro-life measures grow all over the country; add to this the soon sharply increasing mortality rate among the old potheads (mortality rises sharply after 70; this is 2020 for your archetypal Sixty-Eighter) and you’ll see why “pro-choice” is, in the long-term, doomed.
Truly beautiful blog post here, from a woman who was a persuaded (so-called) pro-choice activist and has later become a pro-life activist. In her case, this happened because she saw photos of aborted babies, those shocking images I do not have the nerve to put into this blog (which I would like to be readable also from impressionable natures), but which can certainly be extremely powerful in giving someone a salutary shock.
More in general, the author of the mentioned blog post reiterates what I was saying in a very recent post: the ultra-sound images (which she calls sonograms) will be a powerful element in persuading people that abortion is homicide.
Let us read together some beautiful passage of this remarkable story of personal development. On the photos:
Most people think, as I did, in terms of “tissue,” “clumps of cells,” “the products of pregnancy,” all the euphemisms Planned Parenthood and the entire anti-life front use to dehumanize an unborn child. An image of an aborted baby says in one second what even the most well-informed and eloquent pro-life crusader could not say in two hours. It says: “This is a human being, and it is dead.” A picture of an abortion does not show you a terminated pregnancy or some discarded tissue. It shows you, clearly and finally, a child that has been killed. Legally.
On the sonogram:
The sonogram image is the most powerful visual tool in the pro-life arsenal. It is far more effective and powerful to the woman considering abortion than even the most horrifying photo of an aborted baby, because the child is alive and the child is hers.
On the pro-choice propaganda:
“Women who go to abortion clinics are bombarded with the aforementioned euphemisms: tissue, clump of cells, product of pregnancy. But a moving image of the child inside her, in some cases fully formed and active, its strong little heart beating away: this belies the euphemisms. It negates the propaganda. It is the truth, in front of her eyes, and it is the most powerful weapon we have to fight the people who would kill that child and collect their fee”.
If abortion is the empowering act organizations like NARAL would have us believe, they would shrug off sonogram law. If abortion is the nonchalant casting-off of useless tissue anti-lifers would have us believe, a woman could look unflinchingly at the “clump of cells” on the sonogram and say to the abortionist, “Go for it.” But NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and their ilk know that the woman is going to see a baby.
But it is possible, and I like to believe probable, that it is a higher emotion that will cause a woman to keep her baby upon viewing a sonogram. I think it might even be appropriate to call it something very silly, like love.
These beautiful words truly expose the hypocrisy of the pro-choice rhetoric, and it is in fact true that if the “object” of the abortion were only a clump of cells, no sonogram in the world could ever be a deterrent to the abortion being executed.
For too long, Western societies have chosen – out of ill-conceived “feminism” or, more probably, in order to be able to do as they please – not to see. But when the sonogram or the photos are put in front of one it is really, really difficult not to see.
Therefore, it can happen that only looking at photos moves a person persuaded for years to simply change her mind. Juts imagine what happens when it is the sonogram of one’s own child.
I wish the Texan law all the best and am curious to see, in a couple of years, the effect of the 24 hour rule on a great number of abortion. It can be said that at times, gruesome photos save lives.
The strange almost human-looking chap above is, very probably, what will give the Pro-Life Army final victory in the battle against abortion. It is an ultra-sound machine, and it allows to see a baby in the womb with a clearness never experienced before by the vast public.
In societies like the Western ones, where technological innovations are massively applied to the field of medicine and rapidly spread to everyday life, it is unavoidable that this machine will, in time, make more and more mothers truly, emotionally aware of what happens when they abort.
Every blathering of “reproduction rights” must surely pale, when a small human being is visible on a screen not three feet away from you. Every argument of “right to choose” must surely be exposed as cruelly selfish, when it is clear that this supposed right is to choose to kill a human life clearly, indisputably existent.
This is why, says here, even Gallup recognises the rapid shift in American public opinion; a shift that, in time and much more slowly, will certainly pave its way on the other side of the Pond too; not because of a newly acquired Christian sensitivity, but because of the sheer force of the ultrasound images.
It would be a delicious paradox if the gravest controversy of the last decades were to be decided through technology coming to the help of the Conservative side, and reinforcing religious ideas previously seen as the epitome of backward thinking.
Besides, technology won’t stop. In five years’ time the images obtained by ultrasound machines will be even better than the ones visible today; in ten years’ time, resistance to abortion ban on some strangely construed “moral ground” will be futile.
Better days ahead.
Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say that reality produces stories that the most fervent imagination couldn’t invent.
One is, therefore, reminded of this great author when he knows of a taxpayer-funded website called mariatalks.com (well, no; no active link). The site is, unsurprisingly, funded by the State of Massachusetts, always in the forefront of every abomination movement.
This site gives girls such “useful” advice as suggesting that abortion is easy and safe (“effective”, they say, meaning that at the end of the procedure the baby is most surely dead), accompanied at most by some “temporary discomfort”.
This site is really satanic. To have the gut to even suggest to a girl that when she aborts she will not run the risk (and even the most Goebbelsian of pro-choice activist must admit that the risk is there) of being haunted all her life by what she has done is pure evil.
Instead, the accent is on “temporary” and on that oh so innocuous word, “discomfort”. One would think it is about a gym session, but it is about legalised murder instead.
Always on the satanic line, the name of the oh so liberated fictional woman giving oh so practical advice is, what a coincidence, “Maria”.
Also note that “Maria” gives suggestions about how to abort without the parents knowing. Think how nice this is: you are a taxpayer and you discover that your taxes are funding sites teaching your daughter how to kill your nephew without you even knowing! Aahh, freedom…..
Methinks, many parents will experience more than “temporary discomfort” when they know this.
If I were pro-oh-chooooooice, I’d wonder whether it’s not always the wrong ones who get aborted.