Sunday, 27 January 2013


Europeans can’t understand the abortion debate that rages in the United States.  For them the ‘argument’ (if, indeed, there ever was one) has been ‘settled’.  They throw around their conclusion as if they are saying a prayer: ‘it is a private matter between a woman and her doctor’ – a phrase so ridiculous it sounds like something out of a George Orwell novel. 

As a traditionally-minded British person, I cannot be happier at the rise in ‘pro-lifers’ in the United States, but, contrary to popular myth, my pro-life stance stems not from religion (although I must admit I am Catholic), it stems, rather, from science and from reason. 

The problem with the abortion argument is that it has been defined by the incredibly fanatical and resolutely one-sided Feminists, who focus all debate solely on the silly little song, ‘women’s right to choose’.  For them, if you are anti-abortion you are denying women a so-called ‘right’.

But this is a forgery.  The real argument (in a civilized, thoughtful society at least) ought to be centred round the sole question: when does life begin? 

Science cannot explicitly ‘tell’ us at which point life begins, which, in my opinion, should make us even more cautious of abortion, for we can never be entirely sure if we are killing a human being or not.  However, biology informs us that life begins at the point of human conception.  There is no doubt that the embryo has human DNA.  There is also the *rational* obviousness: that the embryo is constantly growing, and in little more than nine months you will be able to hold it in your arms – a newly born child. 

How, then, can a growing child in the womb not be a child?  Is it, perhaps, because the fact is hidden from view, because we do not see the crime we are committing?  It is a lot easier to pull the trigger when you can’t see the victim’s face, staring at you and the bullet that will destroy him.  Likewise, when you can’t see the human nature of the foetus, you pretend it is something else.  The standard, PC description is a ‘blob of jelly’ – another laughable phrase that only an uneducated, intolerant wimp could possibly believe. 

If a pro-abortion person wants to rationally debate the beginning of life, then I am happy to hear, but, from what I have seen so far, no one ever does.  That is because they can’t, that is because they know they’ll loose.  Hence, they must run around the ‘rights’ argument, branding all pro-lifers as ‘anti-women’.  I am glad, then, to see so many young women in the March for Life movement. 

The 'March for Life' Protest (2013) in DC.
comprised of thousands, but what was mostly
ignored by the mainstream, liberal media
If we can conclude that life begins at conception (and the evidence we have points to that) then can the ‘right of the child to live’ really compete with the ‘right of the mother to murder it’?  Who is in graver danger, the child or the mother?  Well, it appears that the child’s *very existence* is in danger.  The destruction of life is (or at least should be) hailed as the most serious crime.  We think it our duty to protect the life of all people, and when a murder is committed (such as the mass-shooting in Newtown) we demand punishment (though, as I have written already on this blog, banning guns is a feeble way of reducing gun crime, and would only have the effect of chopping away at our liberty).  ‘The right of the mother,’ though, merely focuses on the mother’s selfish desire to throw away the consequence of her action so that she can go back to school, or get a promotion, or stay out late clubbing.  I know some people will say that, on rare occasions the ‘life of the mother’ might be jeopardised, but I must tell you this is such a rarity it is not worth even mentioning.  Although, to settle the argument, I will make a compromise: ‘abortion may be allowed in the case of ‘rape, incest, or the life of the mother being at risk’’ – a song that conservatives ought to memorise, so as to silence the concerned liberals once and for all. 

But the Femofascists do not care about the life of the child.  Like many other ideologues, they are happy to kill for their beliefs.  The unborn child must die in order for the woman to be properly ‘liberated’ from the curse of Motherhood.  She must be fully able to run away from the natural order.  Thus, the ‘when does life begin?’ argument is unimportant.  Likewise, other ideologues have thought it necessary to kill in order to satisfy their ‘convictions’.  Adolf Hitler believed that the Jews had to wiped off the face of the earth, and Mao Zedong believed the ‘bourgeoisie’ classes had to be eradicated if a truly Communist state were to exist.  These people didn’t stop to think about whether their victims were human or not.  That is because they didn’t care – they were ruled by their ideologies, and ideology seldom allows for independent thought and appropriate questioning. 

Abortion, though, should not be an ideological issue.  Religious or atheist, liberal or conservative, all should believe in upholding the ‘right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ – LIFE being the most important, as without it no other right can exist.  

No comments:

Post a Comment