|
Real Inconvenient Truths....
About Abortion
Selwyn Duke
JBS
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Overcome with grief and remorse, a British woman kills herself
after having an abortion.
Follow this link to the original source: " Artist
hanged herself after aborting her twins"
Out of Britain comes a very sad, sad story. Emma Beck, an
artist tormented by having aborted her twins, was found hanging
at her home a day before her 31st birthday. Expressing her
grief and regret in a suicide note, she wrote: "I should
never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a
good mum."
While suicide isn’t a common consequence of abortion,
the emotional torment that can precipitate it certainly is.
Attesting to this is Theresa Karminski Burke, a psychotherapist
who has counseled hundreds of "Post-abortion Trauma"
victims. In her book Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of
Abortion, she quotes many of these poor souls. One of them,
Ellen, expressed well her sisterhood of pain’s unremitting
torment, saying, "I wish I had never done it. I will
never forgive myself. Sometimes I could kill myself for that."
But what is this "it"? Is it just, as the pro-abortion
side would say, the extraction of a "lump of cells"
or an "unviable tissue mass"? Are they correct when
asserting that such a woman’s feelings are the problem,
not what caused them?
(Article continues below)
Another woman quoted by Burke would answer with a plaintive
no. Her name is Katrina, and, like so many, she was told that
what grew within her wasn’t a baby, just a tissue mass.
Here’s what she said about her painful clash with reality
after aborting her 16-week-old child:
I went over to the sink to see what they [the
doctors] were looking at. There were all the reassembled parts
of my baby; arms, legs, torso and what must have been the
head. They were tiny and perfect. In that instant I felt an
incredible horror. This was my baby! Torn apart, in bloody
pieces. My doctor, the abortionist, the staff – all
liars! I hated them. I left the office in a state of numb
repulsion. I began to despise myself even more than them.
Despite such powerful testimonials, many on the pro-abortion
side will still aver that we don’t really know when
the unborn become human. So let’s examine the matter.
In what month would you say this transition occurs? If you’re
not sure, I’ll make it easy: Pick any month you choose.
I will then ask, what week of that month? What day of that
week? What hour of that day? What minute of that hour? What
second of that minute? Then, what nanosecond of that second?
This illuminates the matter. The attainment of personhood
cannot be a month but a moment, yet it doesn’t make
sense to say that one moment what exists is not human but
the next it is so.
That is, unless that moment is conception. For, prior to
then, "it" doesn’t exist.
Conception is obviously a seminal point, for it isn’t
development, but that which initiates it. It’s much
as with fire. Would we say that a fire is only a fire when
it’s of use to us, such as when we need heat? No, once
you have the necessary ingredients — combustible materials,
oxygen, a spark and ignition — a fire is born. It may
develop, grow and spread, but a fire is a fire no matter how
small. And it will then continue until it runs its course
and exhausts itself — or until it is snuffed out.
It’s this reality that haunts these hapless women;
it is their tell-tale heart. They learn in a most merciless
way what so many deny, and denial it is. Thus, we hide the
Truth with euphemisms, those verbal Trojan Horses we trot
out when we don’t want others – or ourselves –
to know what we’re actually doing.
In this case, killing.
As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman said in his book On Killing: The
Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society:
The burden of killing is so great that most
men try not to admit that they have killed . . . Even the
language of men at war is full of denial of the enormity of
what they have done. Most soldiers do not ‘kill,’
instead the enemy was knocked over, wasted, greased, taken
out, and mopped up . . . .
I also think of, "collateral damage," "neutralizing
the enemy," "terminating a pregnancy," "dilation
and extraction," "a matter of choice," "unviable
tissue mass" . . . .
As for abortion-speak, it serves a cause whose need to whitewash
the killing is even greater. While a war can be just, abortion
involves not a self-defense rationale but a self-indulgence
one. It’s hard to justify the killing of innocent people,
no matter how small, so we make them even smaller, reducing
them to something less than people. They are "lumps of
cells."
Speaking of language and dehumanization, philosophy professor
Mike Pakaluk draws an interesting parallel. He begins by asking
if the following is a good representation of the "pro-choice"
position:
If each person will only agree to mind his
own business, and leave his neighbors alone, there will be
peace forever between us... I am now speaking of rights under
the constitution, and not of moral or religious rights...
It is for women to decide ... the moral and religious right
of the abortion question for themselves within their own limits....
I repeat that the principle is the right of each woman to
decide this abortion question for herself, to have an abortion
or not, as she chooses, and it does not become a pro-lifer,
or anybody else, to tell her she has no conscience, that she
is living in a state of iniquity... We have enough objects
of charity at home, and it is our duty to take care of our
own poor, and our own suffering, before we go abroad to intermeddle
with other people’s business.
Interestingly, these words aren’t Pakaluk’s.
Rather, he took one of Stephen Douglas’ defenses of
slavery, and substituted "‘abortion’ for
‘slavery’; ‘woman’ for ‘state’;
and ‘a pro-lifer’ for ‘Mr. Lincoln.’"
He then asks the pro-abortion side:
"Doesn’t the similarity between
your defense of abortion, and Douglas’ defense of slavery,
bother you in any way? Does it raise in your mind any suspicions
at all that you might just be on the wrong side?"
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
