Blog Archives

Abortion, Uterus, And Property Rights.

Ipsa Dixit.

Ipsa Dixit.

We all know that pro-abortion radicals have no problem with male politicians speaking in support of abortion, or male lobbyists fighting for federal funding of Planned Parenthood, or male doctors performing abortions. But the minute a man speaks out for life, it’s “HEY! If you don’t have a uterus, ZIP IT!!!”

No, Madame Anger, I will not zip it. Unless you are trying to tell me my fly is down, in which case, thank you. I will zip it slowly and carefully.

Guys, I don’t know about you, but I for one am tired of being told that because I can never carry a child, I can’t stick up for one. It’s time to stop bowing to prejudice. It’s time to start being men.

In conclusion, to those who burn with rage when we men have the nerve to stand up for life, I offer this humble apology: please forgive us for being born male. What were we thinking?

This very funny lines come from the author of an article appeared on a pro-life site, and worthy of being read in its entirety. I think it stands out for the refreshing openness so far away from the usual political correctness surrounding these arguments.

Having a uterus does not give her owner any property right over any human being, least of all an unborn child. 

Mundabor

The Sodoma Experiment, Part III: The Accomplices

By all the disgust about the astonishing feat of these last days (two perverted children “adopting” – or something like that – a third child, this one very young) we have somewhat overlooked the fact that in this case, astonishing behaviour is shown on several levels.

Let us take, for example, the mother. I mean by that the rightful owner of the uterus considered fit enough for an aging rock star and his chosen boy toy. No doubt the lady can use the cash as, for what I know, the physiological process of pregnancy is neither of little consequence, nor entirely pleasant, nor devoid of some (residual, nowadays) health risk. This without considering the bikini shape, as I am risking the assumption that one able and accustomed to have almost any whim satisfied will choose to have his boy or (more importantly) daughter as pleasing to the eye as technology and money can make possible.

The mother, then. I can hear all the circle of friends and acquaintances emitting various  rumours and hushed cries of faked joy swearing about how “beautiful” this is. How “sweet”. How very “exciting”. By the money probably involved, the word “remunerative” might also have fallen in; though of course not in the presence of the sweet angel bearing the new life romantically injected into her after the documentation was finalised.

What is more to the point is that the lady prostituted her uterus for the well-paid pleasure of a strange royal family composed of two queens, and that all those who have helped in doing so (the doctors and medical personnel; or the lawyers caring for the, no doubt, ponderous legal side of the matter) have abetted this prostitution.

Think of it: in most Western countries the law does not allow to organise an establishment so that men can have an hour of (sinful, but humanly rather understandable*) pleasure, but in the same countries it would be allowed to rent a woman not for an hour of pleasure but for nine months of a complex biological process; not to satisfy an extremely common human craving, but to satisfy the extraordinary whim of a very rich person; not to satisfy a sexual attraction whose existence (even if wrongly directed in this case) is preordered by God and considered holy, but to satisfy a perversion God has never made possible in the first place and only a perverted use of technology in Mengele-style has made achievable. The madame of the establishment which Elton John might have visited to get a whim out of his system (if he had been a man; which he isn’t) would have risked jail, but the doctor who implanted a baby on the uterus of his choice doesn’t.

Funny world. Where are the feminists when they could, for once, be of some use.

The mother, then. Methinks, she reasons that this is only a biological exercise; that once the child has been given away he will be soon be if not forgotten, at least not remembered as her own lost child; that by all the money received in the process (I can’t really imagine her having financial cares, ever again) she’ll be able to go on with her life, have her own children, give them better chances than this would otherwise have been possible, & Co. Doesn’t work that way, though. Volens nolens, she is the mother. Nature is stronger than rationalisation and clever thinking. Nature doesn’t care for the content of legal documents. Nature will claim from her, one day, that motherhood that she has sold, prostituted away.

We see it happening in these tragic era, with female suicides on the rise largely because of abortions committed several decades before. We have seen it happening in all ages past, with mothers forced to give their babies to the care of an orphanage pining for their lost motherhood (involuntarily lost, poor souls) for the rest of their life. We see it happening even in men, developing an extremely keen sense of loss after divorce and partial isolation from their children. Think of the sorrow of the woman discovering one day (a day far away perhaps, but a day that will invariably come) that this was her child, made by her and sold. Wouldn’t want to be her, not for all money in the world.  

Far less tragic appears in comparison the position of the other accomplices and one can’t exclude that they will live and die in utter disregard of the evil they have contributed to create. Still, even for them the day will come when account must be given. I hope and pray that for them awareness and repentance may come before it’s too late.

I wish everyone a happy, prosperous and spiritually fruitful 2011.

Mundabor

* Before the usual idiots and feminists come out saying that “Mundabor approves of prostitution”, let me make clear that I don’t.

%d bloggers like this: